Talk:Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Origin of this page
This page was separated from the Exclusive Brethren page in February 2008. For discussion of issues relating to the RTH brethren article content before then see Talk:Exclusive_Brethren and Talk:Exclusive_Brethren/Archive_1
Jarich (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History
When did the group start? This isn't explained clearly. It should be in the intro. Malick78 (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know that this particular group "started" so much as evolved. I suspect that if you were to ask a RTH historian, they'd say that they've been keeping with the one true way since the Plymouth Brethren started in the first place. But this is a guess, and I don't know if they even have historians. The Plymouth Brethren apparently started in the late 1820s. It seems to have schismed often and dramatically since them. First(?) between open and exclusive, then again and again after that. All groups have every right (in my opinion) to feel that their path has been the one-true-way because each time a schism has occurred it's been caused by the participants having to pick a side in an argument. Obviously they're going to pick the side that is "right" and true to them.
- I agree however, that the introduction needs work. I tried to make the minimum changes necessary to separate the two articles, so that people could see what the changes were. I did not feel it right to separate and make dramatic rewrites at the same time. Hopefully someone else will fix the intro for me, but if not, then next time I have a free evening, I'll give it a go.
- Yes I agree, the group "evolved". The RTH branch are led by Pope like figures which started off with Darby with succession passing to J.B. Stoney, F.E. Raven, CA Coates, James Taylor Sr, James Taylor Jnr etc. They believe God always has an appointed vessel. [1] Even Darby had his foibles, leaving aside his doctrine, his inflexibility and dominance was a major factor in all the early splits or maybe in the early days it did need a dominant person to try and keep the movement together. Having formed in the late 1820s, after coming out of the denominations, the movement attempted to consolidate in regards to doctine and practise. The doctrine of Darby won the day, the movement gained numerical strength and instead of letting any Christian into fellowship, only those holding to the doctrine of Darby were accepted by the Darby dominated assemblies. The Open Brethren and the other Exclusive branches which have split away, are not under the stranglehold of a single man. Hence, outside of the RTH branch, diversity of doctrine is often tolerated, especially in the more open meetings. Darby did reintroduce the principle of the priesthood of all believers and the rejection of clergy, it is very ironic that he became a Pope like figure. --Another berean (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed text -- RE: Don Brash.
The article included:
- The support of the Exclusive Brethren for the National Party has caused surprise to some people, as Don Brash is a self-confessed atheist and had a long-running affair with his now second wife while married to his first, before divorcing his first wife to marry his second.
in the New Zealand politics section. I've removed this because it's badly written (it's a needlessly long sentence), it unreferenced, and doesn't strike me as being particularly relevant. Further, since this isn't an article about Don Brash, nor the EB's opinion of him (being only one member of the National Party) I'm not sure that airing his dirty laundry here is appropriate.
If you feel that including this is important, please feel free to explain it's importance here, and provide references for the facts that a) some people were surprised, b) Don Brash is a self-confessed atheist, c) he had that affair. Bonus points for d) why the EB would care about the sexual life of a secular politician.
