Talk:Christian Conventions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Doctrine

This is a draft rework of the Doctrine section... It is incomplete

This faith has no published doctrine, other than what can be extracted from the books of the New and Old Testaments. This situation lends itself to regional and generational variations, more so than many other faiths. Much of the propogation of the Two by Two doctrine occurs during Convention gatherings. During these events, the visiting preachers from other countries goes some way to homogenising the doctrine. There are two core beliefs which, together, characterise the doctrine of this faith. These are:

  • the need for an un-salaried ministry (preacher collective) of celibate, unmarried persons (generally arising from Matt 10:9 and 1 Cor.7:5-7).
  • conduct of Sunday worship by small groups in designated members' homes (The Acts 17:24)
There are other beliefs, which have influence within the faith, but which aren't readily apparent to outside observers:
  • profession of belief at mission meetings as a first step to conversion.
  • the need for regular attendance of Sunday fellowship meetings and other meetings for a significant period prior to being accepted for baptism.
There are also traditions, the extent taken being more governed at a personal level, such as;
  • modesty in personal appearance, including long hair worn in a bun and dresses for women members.
  • declination of broadcast media (tv, radio), secular music, commercial entertainment (movies, video)
  • (incomplete list)
They believe that church-owned buildings, except convention ground facilities, are an unnecessary addition to Biblical Christianity, and conduct their fellowship meetings in the homes of believers. They believe that (some of) Jesus' instructions to his apostles in Matthew 10 - go from village to village, preaching in pairs, not taking any worldly possessions, but relying on the hospitality and generosity of the villagers - are the only acceptable pattern for Christian ministry. The group was fairly progressive regarding the role of women in the church, with women workers first commissioned to preach in 1901. A controversial teaching, presumably originating with the founder Wm Irvine, was that of the Living Witness Doctrine (first recorded mention being in a Convention sermon by Joseph Kerr in 1903). This was derived from a statement by a contemporary of Charles Darwin that "only something that is living can reproduce life". It was concluded that only through the preaching of a 2x2 preacher (a "living witness") could one be saved. As a consequence of this doctrine, there was a significant exodus from the church at this time.

[edit] Naming conventions

  1. The name of the institution: "Two by Two" is not the official name of the sect/church so let's only use it if we have to (such as in the case of the article). Where possible it might be more encyclopaedic to simply not use the name and just say the sect or the church (which leads to the next point). Note: If we are going to use the shortcut term "2x2", we ought to use 2x2 instead of 2x2's (which makes little grammatical sense and is a confusion of the normal use of the possessive apostrophe).
  2. The type of institution: Also, this article refers to a sect in the correct sense of the word so "the group" is perhaps not such a good term and even "the church" is confusing but would be acceptable in an explanatory context.
  3. Members of the institution: Members ought to be called Two by Two members or members of the sect rather than "2x2s" which is again confusing, especially when the apostrophe is included.

What do you think? Could we agree on some naming conventions here? Donama 05:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the need for naming conventions. I agree that the possessive use of "2x2's" is incorrect. If the apostrophe is not included (2x2s) it makes more sense, but is not as readable as "two-by-twos". "Members of the sect" is a bit wordy. It's much easier to identify members of any group via the use of a single word (catholic, methodist, baptist, etc). --Ilylo 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
What do others think? Is it okay to use the term "two-by-twos" when it appears this is a term by which members of the sect would never actually identify themselves? Donama 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. Members of the sect will never identify themselves as such sect (using the argument that they did not give it the name), much less agree to a term by which to identify them.--Ilylo 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Suggest that the term Friends and the like, be explained very early in the piece and subsequently italicised as if a foreign/loaned word. I think this would be most in alignment with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. They should be considered loan-words, as they have particular meaning which is not embodied in common parlance. I don't see there is any point in concocting any new terms to apply to the sect members. Surely member is sufficient in the context of the article? Jonathan
Again, I agree with this. It's a potentially confusing label but likely the best approach to take. Thanks for your inputs on this! Donama 08:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree it's a problem. I often find myself using "Fellowship" as in "Two-by-Two Fellowship". It avoids any misunderstandings or negative connotations of words like "sect", "group", "denomination" or "church". Thus, "members of the Fellowship". I think 2x2 is a very useful abbreviation. And as above, if Friends is defined early on, this can be used as an abbreviation for "members of the 2x2 Fellowship". Just my tuppence worth! --Alikia 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the overall thrust of the article is to point out differences to mainstram (orthodox?) Christianity while missing that there are many similarities? GeoffC 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership figures

An editor a few days back adjusted the figures of 2x2 membership from 40,000-80,000 to 400,000-800,000? Does anyone have any sources for the figures. 100,000 plus or minus 50,000 worldwide sounds like a likely figure to me. What do you think? Donama 00:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

GeoffC: There are listed about 400 conventions. These vary from 50- 2000 attendees, perhaps averaging 300. There's multiple attendance in some countries, which probably cancels out those that don't attend, so 400 x 300 = 120000. I'd venture to say that there could be 100,000.
400 conventions listed? Where is such a list? --Ilylo 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
GeoffC, perhaps you could scan it and put it on Wiki commons as a source. Donama 03:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to a list of conventions for 2002/2003 is http://home.earthlink.net/~truth444/BRG5-2ConvWW2003.html I didn't count these exactly, but there's about 400. Geoff C

I count 424 on that list. Not bad for a church that isn't "organized." --Ilylo 00:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two by Two faith is not a Sect

If you do some research, the term sect cannot be attributed to this group. It really should be referenced as a denomination in its own right. The term sect refers to an off-shoot of an existing, established denomination. The Two by Twos clearly aren't that, as the group was started from scratch. That the group is smallish and relatively unknown is irrelevant. That some consider appropriate the weirdo connotation that comes with the term sect is also irrelevant. Thus, by definition, the current opening line of the Two by Two article, "...is one of many colloquial names given by outside observers to a Christian sect founded by William Irvine in the late 1890s." is incorrect. It should perhaps read, "...is one of the colloquial names given by outside observers to a small Christian denomination founded by William..." Jonathan

Strongly take your point, Jonathan, especially considering this naming convention is applied in analogous Wikipedia articles. I agree it should be changed. Donama 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is interesting. The "group was started from scratch"? Hmmm. How scratch was scratch in this instance? Irvine was of Presbyterian background, and working for the Methodist Faith Mission at the time he launched off in his own direction. His lieutenant John Long was a Methodist colporteur. Much of the methodology and even jargon was taken from the Faith Mission (eg. "workers"). Wikipedia itself gives useful definitions for sect and denomination (A sect is a small religious or political group that has branched off from a larger established group. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion or party that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well established religious group). I tend to think sect is more apt, certainly than denomination. --Alikia 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
So Two by Twos are a sect of which denomination then Alikia? Presbyterian? Methodist? Faith Mission? To quote Wikipedia on Sect; A sect is a small religious or political group that has branched off from a larger established group. How established do you think Faith Mission was after less than 15 years? Compare with Christian denomination, A denomination, in the Christian sense of the word, is an identifiable religious body, organization under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine.
Identifiable religious body? Yes. Common name, structure, doctrine? Yes. Denomination? Methinks so, but you decide. Jonathan 11:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Jonathan, 'Two by Twos' are a sect of protestantism if you like or the Church of England. Having thought about this more carefully I think it is inconclusive as to whether 'Two by Two' be considered a sect or denomination. It is open to opinion as to whether there is an "identifiable religious body". Due to denial and lack of any official recognition there is no common name and the common structure and doctrine may exist but is not verifiable and certainly not standardised as in typical Christian denominations.
Possibly neither "sect" or "denomination" are appropriate words and this should be noted in the introduction, along with the reasons we've all put forward. Donama 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also... Let's note that the few published resources on Two by Two tend to refer to it as a sect or a church, which seems to lend weight to Alikia's position on this. Donama 06:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term "denomination" simply cannot apply to this group, particularly because not having a name is a central point of their doctrine. Moreover, they describe themselves as non-denominational. Postxian 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits (~7 Jan)

I've reverted the following three edits, for the reasons outlined. I don't want to provoke a flame war, but some of these changes appear to be pro-Two by Two, and an attempt at reducing NPOV. We can do better than that. Jonathan Rabbitt 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted in edit 04:31, 7 January 2006 68.103.11.101 (→History controversies)

The lack of any official history or documentation, combined with the doctrine ascribing the begininigs to Jesus' Apostles, has caused and continues to cause much controversy and angst amongst members and ex-members.

I'm not sure quite why this needed to be deleted. This is the lead-in paragraph for the controversies section. Perhaps it could be made less encompasing by changing much to another word with less emphasis. Please comment.

Added 04:34, 7 January 2006 68.103.11.101 (→History controversies)

Obviously there are contradictions even between the paragraphs of this section. Most present-day members would disagree strongly with paragraphs two and three especially.

This addition seemed ambiguous to me. I could not work out which paragraphs were being referenced. Certainly if the context was within the History controversies section, it did not make sense to me. Please comment and clarify.

Added 00:12, 7 January 2006 81.154.91.221 (→Membership and geographic spread)

In recent years there has been an increase in ex-members using the internet to distribute information. This is in some cases impartial, but in others aimed at fulfilling their cause, and make as many leave this Christian fellowship as possible.

This sentence is not relevant to the section it is placed in. It also reads like a bit of defensive flamebait statement intended to discredit the internet as a source of information (which is ironic, on reflection). I can't see that this sentence adds any value to the joe-average reader, but perhaps some discussion here could shed light on the intent and value.

I think what you did was fine. All content in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable and this assists NPOV. Also, original research is theoretically not permitted on Wikipedia. Of course, Two by Two has a real lack of published resources. We aim to upload a lot of scans of documents and other Two by Two related material to Wiki commons very soon so hopefully this should assist. For now, we can make a real effort to maintain a coherent structure and pointing out where there is more than one point of view. It would also help if we can use a login accounts to make controversial edits. Donama 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Jonathan Rabbitt's reversion. Thanks! The changes were hardly neutral. And supporting Donama's suggestion, if anybody reading here has copies of original documentation or sermons or diary-entries that relate to the 2x2 Fellowship, please contact Donama or myself and we'll see that they're archived for posterity in Wikisource. --Alikia 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (pending applicable copyright laws --Donama 06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Serious problem with connection to Cooneyites

The Cooneyites are people who followed (willingly or by force of excommunication) Eddie Cooney after his 1928 (I think?) expulsion from the work. Those who followed Irvine after his expulsion in what, 1917(?) are a much smaller group called something like "The Testimony", which is not mentioned at all. The fact that Cooney was expelled long after Irvine was should feature a bit more prominently in the lead, IMHO, since it's apparently deemed important that the Cooneyites' association with the "black stocking religion" be mentioned there... Tomertalk 07:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "with the faith unchanged"

This phraseology ignores the fact that there was (in 1904 or 1908, I don't remember offhand which) a huge paradigm shift—from an exclusively itinerant proselytizing force (the workers) to an acceptance of "settled folk" (what are now called "the friends"), who have long since made up the overwhelming bulk of the "membership" [to coin a term]. Tomertalk 07:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Feel free to rework it. By the way if you know of any other published sources on this, please add them too. Donama 06:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two by Two vs. Two by Twos

I'm not advocating changing the article name, I'm advocating correct English. Tomertalk 18:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed most references to "Two by Two"s altogether, since circumlocutions are easy enough to write clearly. IMHO, the article should refer to these folks as seldom as possible by this name, since it is a label given by non-members, former members, many of whom seem to have a bone to pick with the group, it refers primarily to the ministry, and is seen as "equally offensive" by many members as labels such as "the no-name church" and "the black-stocking religion". Tomertalk 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this point, but why was "Two by Two" chosen in the first place? Would there be any alternative names for the article? Donama 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why "Two by Two" was chosen to begin with, all I know is that the name is not any more legitimate as a moniker for the group than "The Black Stocking Religion" or "The Tramp Preachers". There are probably legitimate alternative names (Christian Conventions comes to mind) which are less offensive, but technically, having the article at Two by Two is (without too much exaggeration) analogous to having Jew listed at Kike (which you'll note, is not a redirect to Jew, but rather an article about the racist epithet). Tomertalk 04:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

Request moving this article to "Christian Conventions" leaving a redirect from "Two by Two" in place to the new article title in perpetuity. Please indicate your opinion on the proposed move by stating support, oppose or neutral below. I think there is no hurry here. We could allow up to a month for comments and votes on the move request. Donama 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak support: This is the only name the church has used to officially self identify. Two by Two is a nickname popularised by former members, making it somewhat biased to continue its use. Donama 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • slightly more than weak support: I really don't know what would make a decent name for sure... the fact of the matter is that it's only been registered in the US (with the draft board) as "Christian Conventions", and even most of its membership wouldn't recognize it by that name. That said, at least a non-polemical source (i.e., the US Gov't.) can be found to actually support such a name. Unfortunately, "Christian Conventions" is not the only name the group has ever used to officially self-identify...it has been registered with draft boards in other countries under other names, which I don't recall off-hand... Tomertalk 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not just in the USA. I seem to recall it's been used in other countries. For example, in this PDF you can see the church is registered in Western Australia under this name. Admittedly it's difficult to see much less verify how widespread this is. Donama 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We could, but as it seems, there's no opposition. Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Annual conventions are a relatvely unique trait all members and most non-members will probably have at least some familiarity, thus Christian Conventions is an appropriate title, with no offensive connotations. Jonathan 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hymnal

I added a section near to the bibliography for the hymnal of this group. I am not sure how to enter a bibliographic reference to this book, however. There is no ISBN as far as I know. I did find a page at Amazon for it (two used copies). Also there is a lot of info at this link:

[1] Postxian 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/Talk%7EChristian_Conventions_d79a.html"