Talk:Plymouth Brethren Christian Church

Well I was working for the brethren in the UK until members said some pretty extreme things..I googled them and found out the profits were channelled into suppressing child sex victims, gay conversion therapy, lobbying conservatives to abolish welfare, handing out leafets and campaigning for conservatives and have received £1.1b in PPE contracts from the government... which is hilarious as their religion was created because they thought the church were too close to the secular state, but at this point they are almost symbiotic with the state.

None of this absolutely credible mainstream news is included in this wiki.

And also parts of this wiki are clearly written by brethren in first person terms seeking to justify themselves. I also note the poor grammar consistent with a writer who was forbidden to attend mainstream schooling or university.

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)

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.

Jarich (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I am adding material from a French language research publication which should help. Feel free to provide a more accurate translation.Veritan (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

Jarich (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DISCIPLINE

Having been a Plymouth Brother, I feel an obligation to use the term "the Lord's Table" rather than "Communion" to describe the taking / sharing of the body and blood of Christ. I hope no one minds the changes. (Paleocon44 (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Name of the group

Is there any external evidence that "Raven-Taylor-Hales" has been used to describe this group or is it largely a Wiki creation? The only self-published book I can find with that name is derived from Wikipedia.

I've just removed a set of Raven/Taylor/Symington/Hales tags from the Exclusive Brethren article but I'm not even convinced that the name used here is current. The use of Raven-Taylor I can verify from book published in 1936 though they were always called the Taylor party or Taylorites in my memory. But I'm not sure of the value of continually adding the current leader's name - what happens when it changes? Chris55 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the group has been historically identified as Plymouth Brethren IV since at least 1906. The different Plymouth Brethren branches have been identified by roman numerals I to X at least since the US census in that year and CESNUR currently identifies them that way. I'm considering reverting to that name, if I can gather some authoritative references.Veritan (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Plymouth Brethren IV tag is just something used until recently by the US Census and has no popular usage.

However, since they have now started using the title Plymouth Brethren Christian Church I wonder whether the article should be revised to reflect this. But it needs to be a name that is accepted by the whole group. It's certainly widespread in Britain and Australia, but does anyone know if the assemblies in New Zealand and America have gone along with it? The reason I ask is that PBs have traditionally been reluctant to call themselves 'churches' - previously only the Open Brethren have done that widely. Chris55 (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed some info

I have removed some information from the article, citing WP:BLP concerns. Just because we can source it doesn't mean it's appropriate to include it here. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Both people referenced are long since dead. Taylor died in 1970, of an alcohol related disease, Symington in 1987. Chris55 (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not know, as the source is not accessible. Why do you think it is important to include the information about these two people in the article about their church? I think it says more about the two individuals than it does about the church per se, and thus should be removed. To leave it in implies that the behaviour of the individuals reflects poorly on the church itself, and that's not necessarily the case. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Both individuals have wiki articles and the dates of death of both are recorded in this article. I suggest that you read more of the article and you will see that these individuals were more controlling of their flock than almost any other church leader it is possible to think of (short of Jim Jones). Their word had indeed become law and in those circumstances their personal behaviour is certainly relevant. Their successors have built up considerable secrecy around these incidents and it is likely that a member of their church will consider they are unsubstantiated. However there are now sufficient reliable sources that it is possible to state them clearly. I accept Escape Orbit's modifications in the interests of objectivity, as these passages have in the past been exaggerated by others, although in their recent form they were taken directly from cited work. Chris55 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hello - I am new to Wikipedia and so please forgive me if I make some mistakes. I have read this page with interest as I have personal experience of this Church. I am concerned because virtually all the information which is given portrays the Church in a bad light. There are no links to "positive items" such as details of all the charitable work that it does or even details of what its beliefs are. For example the article says that even Children engage in drinking alcohol - this is simply a gross exaggeration, another statement is that every person has to have their own copy of printed meetings, this is simply not true. I would appreciate the help of an Editor in order to make this article more balanced and fair. Can anyone help?Kiwiperson (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)kiwiperson 09.12.14

Agreed. I'm not a Brethren adherent, but this is "cult watch" style writing. Also, it lumps together all expressions of Exclusive Brethren life into one category -- I'm guessing the Hales branch. Most of the Exclusive Brethren I've met would NEVER put an ad in the paper for political purposes or incorporate under a name like "Christian Church." Perhaps it's time for a re-write. 74.192.165.180 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, nameless chap, you can read their own website for yourself. It's full of propaganda, but yes, they ARE incorporated under the "Christian Church" name. Of course, I dispute that they are in ANY way Christian, but that's my POV which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. David Cannon (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I grew up in the Brethren and children were certainly allowed alcohol then - they drank from the cup of port wine passed around the meeting room and were given small amounts of alcohol at other times, often during the weekend breaks between meetings. 58.104.106.225 (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Link to Pauls Glad Tidings website

Hi

Please contact me if you are unhappy with having a link to Pauls Glad Tidings appearing on this page. Please do not just remove the link. It is a very important link and it links to a website that contains important facts,audio files and original hand written letters.

Link - *Where the assembly can be found now – official web site.

--Stephe Noakes (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a message board. It should not be used for posting advertisements however good the cause. The link I last removed was posted anonymously not by anyone identified as you. But if as I suspect you are the same person as Garthnoakes then I very politely asked you not to do this before so you can't say that I haven't asked you. Chris55 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

South African Exodus

I seem to remember that back in about 1998 there was an edict that all of the Hales Exclusive Brethren in South Africa should leave the country, closing' the position' there. Most did so, emigrating to Australia or elsewhere, with a few remaining and either leaving the sect or forming an unrecognised splinter group. Maybe someone who knows the details could add an account of this, as it seems both relevant to the history of the sect and illustrative of the level of control exercised by the heirarchy. 62.253.201.218 (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is finding a Reliable Source for this information. There do appear to be some left in S.A. who are very aggrieved, but I don't know of anything but their own personal ventings of emotion on the web such as that mentioned in the talk section above this one. Chris55 (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Removals by IP editor

User:2605:8d80:6e3:38b0:e513:5832:5f7:689e, based on your edit notes, the basis for these extensive removals seems to have been that you believe Behind the Exclusive Brethren is not a reliable source as we define that in WP. I believe you will have a hard time finding consensus for that conclusion. If you want to raise the question, the correct place is WP:RSN. If you raise it there, please leave a note here saying you did so. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229053844/http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk:80/ to http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/index-2.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/familylife.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/exclusive-brethren-school-kids-brainwashed/story-e6frfkp9-1111112261191
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/rudd-attacks-pm-over-cult-dealings/story-e6frg6nf-1111114243136
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/index-1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113220113/http://www.plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org/ to http://www.plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1390577127&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114103730/http://peebs.net/ to http://peebs.net/
• 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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Charity work

Should charity work such as the Rapid Relief Team be included in this article? It was established in 2013 with teams in New Zealand, Australia, UK, Europe, North and South America, the Caribbean and Canada. It provides catering assistance to charitable organisations such as the emergency services. They also provide care, food and shelter for the homeless. See www.rapidreliefteam.org for more details. Is this significant enough to put in the article, since it is a huge part of their present culture? PumpkinHair (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Too long, fuzzy and unfocused

It seems to me that there’s simply too much detailed and unfocused content here, which serves to obfuscate the broader history, purpose and context of the group.

A lot of the content here appears to have suffered from inconsistent editing and reversions, which means that people and topics are referenced with no prior introduction.

Until I added his name to the lead, there was no mention of Bruce Hales’ name or his role until he was simply referred to as ‘Hales’ about halfway in.

Similarly, ‘the Aberdeen incident’ is referred to by name but without explanation. There was an entire section on the incident, but this has been inexplicably removed.

I think this article needs a careful trim and re-organisation to ensure that it’s a lot more brief, factual and useful than the waffle we have here currently. ollee (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I rediscovered the missing part about the Aberdeen incident and reinstated it. Possible source for future use: the history of Brethren groups (but not specifically the PBCC) is covered in a scholarly study from 2000 called The Brethren: a current sociological appraisal; available at at this website (not sure of quality of website, but document is of undoubted quality). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV?

A large portion of this article seems, to me, to be using remarkably emotive language, specifically the discipline section. For example: "necessary and painful" is a justification and apology for the actions. Think it could do with a rework, but don't want to make any changes myself. The Charity Work section is also fairly emotive: "quality assistance", "greatest challenges" Eip618 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It also uses 'our' in the charity section, which makes me wonder about the sourcing of this information. Like you, I'm in no place to edit these. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Kidnapping attempt

Full details on this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/cultsurvivors/comments/maffh9/pbcc_abduction_foiled_by_ontario_private/ Also a podcast about the kidnap attempt where the target talks about it himself. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/richard-marsh/id1569093583?i=1000565258954

Obviously we can't cite a reddit thread can we? We would want a reliable source for citation. Would a podcast be sufficient source? Sporkstar (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)