Talk:Oxford Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1

[edit] Oxford Group vs Moral Rearmament

When the group became MRA there was a dramatic shift in emphasis. There is no need to go into this in this article except during the gray area of phase over, maybe from 1938 to the early 40s sometime. Buchman has his own article which has "everything" in it. Moral Rearmament also has it's own article. We are not obliged to place everything from MRA, which became unpopular and in which people today have scant interest, into this article which commands considerable interest, at least from 12-steppers, which there are a million or so worldwide. A lot needs to be moved out of this article which is not germane in any way to the Oxford Group. Student7 (talk)

I think this would be a mistake. We should treat the Oxford Group in itself, and not just as some kind of prodrome to 12-step groups. During the time it was called Moral Rearmament, nobody forgot it was the same group as the Oxford Group trying a new strategy. In particular, the fact that the Oxford Group had this rather unsavory looking successor is quite relevant. Tb (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The only question I have is why a different group with a different article is allowed to slop over so seriously into this article? Buchman is the only connection. They are dramatically different groups; thus two articles. This article may be a basis for the MRA article, but the Oxford Group became defunct in 1938. The successor organization became unrecognizable, a real good reason for a separate name change and a separate article, which we have. The boundaries of the article are not being observed, however. Student7 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's revisionist. It's not just Buchman that is the only connection! To say "the Oxford Group became Moral Rearmament" would be accurate; to say "the Oxford Group closed and Buchman started a new group, Moral Rearmament" would be wildly inaccurate. See the beginning of Moral Rearmament for the reality here. The Oxford Group continued, without interruption, as MRA; the name change was gradual and was a change in name of the organization, not a change into a new organization. Tb (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure Buchman definitely didn't mean to do that. I'm sure he fully intended to have all his former followers enter into his new organization with him. The old organization, however, focused on self-improvement and religion. The new one handed out pamphlets on city streets to convert others to the path of righteousness. Church was irrelevant as was self-improvement. In the new movement, you were assumed perfect by merely belonging. A bit elitish, self-serving, this tends to put the pamphlet-receivers in a position of being annoyed. Think Hari Krishna and airports of yesteryear! BTW, I was in London and got one! I was too naive at the time to realize I was being patronized!  :)

But the statistics in the article show what happened to what was then the MRA - 18% still on board? Not really the same group. From MRA's POV, what was past was prologue. From the Oxford Group members POV, the leader had gone off and left them! That is why there are two articles.

We recently had a community of Episcopals leave their church which I will call "Holy Smoke." I will leave you to guess the reason which is not germane to our discussion. But anyway, this new congregation clearly not call their new congregation "Holy Smoke." When they write their history, a separate book, they may include stuff from when the congregation was united. When their old church writes their history, they may not even mention those who abandoned them and moved on. They might put in a word about those who were uncharitable and departed. We pray for them. That sort of thing but the history of that departed organization, after they left, definitely will not be included.

While the Oxford Group was not tied to a building, this is pretty much what happened, with Buchman taking a tiny part of the group and moving on. This is an integrated story in his biography. But the integrated story doesn't belong anywhere else. Not a whole lot of what went before is now in the MRA article, and with good reason. Just not the same result at all. Two different groups. Two different articles.

I will buy this only if you can find some indication that the Oxford Group actually continued past that time. But there isn't any indication of that which I can see in the history. Tb (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Just looked it over. What I would propose to move is the last paragraph beginning with the words about MRA being successful and building a place in Michigan. I would also move the section on after Buchman's death. The rest would stay as being appropriate to this article. How does this sound? Student7 (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I object. The Oxford Group either still exists, turned into something else, or closed up. It doesn't still exist. It never closed up. (On what date, pray tell, did it?) So it turned into something else: MRA. The history of MRA is still relevant to it. Tb (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)