Talk:Half-Way Covenant

Communion

In "The Shaping of American Congregationalism" by John Von Rohr, p. 119 in the section on the Half Way Covenant it says that participation in the Lord's Supper was not allowed those who had only been baptized but had not experienced adult conversion. Revmoran (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for the Half Way Covenant

Several different sources give several different motivations behind the half way covenant. One author, Richard Lyman Bushman, in his book "From Puritan to Yankee," places the half way covenant in the context of efforts to maintain church discipline over the broader community as fewer individuals tooks steps to become full church members.

On page 4 of Robert Ferms article [1]about Congregationalism and the Founding of Middlebury College he writes: In 1648 the “full” members of the church were defined in the Cambridge Platform as those who were orthodox in belief, free from gross and open scandals, and who gave a public testimony of their regeneration. But not all among the new generations could meet those tests and therefore many could not be baptized, or cleansed from the guilt of original sin. Thus, the Half-Way Covenant of 1662 was adopted which allowed the children of unregenerate parents to be baptized. In 1677 Solomon Stoddard, pastor of the church in Northampton, Massachusetts, and the grandfather of Jonathan Edwards, argued as a Calvinist that no one can tell who is regenerate so everyone should be allowed to come into the church (as long as they are orthodox and free from gross and open scandal) and take the Lord’s Supper as a means of regeneration. Later, in the 1740s and beyond, Jonathan Edwards and his successors, the New Divinity, sought to return to the stricter requirements of the Cambridge Platform and required public testimony of regeneration, even from those who were already members of the church. The result was Edwards’s dismissal from the Northampton Church, where he had become the minister upon Stoddard’s death in 1729.

This wiki article is just too simple-minded and doesn't reflect the complexity of the issue.Revmoran (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've added a background section to address the motivations for it. I also plan to work on fleshing out more details of the covenant itself as well as the effects that the controversy around it had on later Congregational history. Ltwin (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• new note* The link from "conversion experience" to "religious conversion" does not make sense. Perhaps link to a specific section within religious conversion, otherwise, another pointless hyperlink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EAC4:ED00:DC3A:C776:8DB4:16DE (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, "conversion experience" now links to Born again, and I've also linked to Puritans#Conversion, which goes into greater detail as to Puritan beliefs about conversion. Ltwin (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Half-Way Covenant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 08:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this soon.

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject. I did do many GA reviews on religious topics.

Overview

1. Prose:

• No copyright violations.
• The article reads well. I will do a detailed review below.

2. MOS: Almost everything is correct, just no short descriptions in the external links.

3. References layout: No dead links, but there are some errors that have popped up: JSTOR sources don't need url access dates, I suppose, because it is a permanent archive.

4. Reliable sources: Sources are all academic or educative from reliable publishers.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness:

• Some parts appear to be lacking. It isn't completely clear how the requirement of the conversion narratives came to be developed; if it could no longer maintained with next generations, does that mean it was invented by the first generation of settlers?

7. Focus: Yes.

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Please add a US tag to The Puritan by Augustus Saint-Gaudens - Springfield. Please add an international tag to The Puritan by Augustus Saint-Gaudens - Springfield and Appletons%27 Mather Richard - Increase.jpg.

Not sure what you mean by international tag. Ltwin (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A tag that applies to all countries in the world, not just the US.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Done now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. I will make small corrections along the way, which I believe to be uncontroversial. Of course, we can discuss it if you don't agree with them.

Background

• to present their children for baptism Isn't there a separate term for adult baptism, as to distinguish this type of baptism from infant baptism?

There's believer's baptism, which is performed on anyone, child or adult, who is old enough to verbally profess faith in Christ. In this particular sentence, I believe infant baptism or at least the baptism of small children is primarily meant. Ltwin (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

How about in the sentence Initially, the Platform included language declaring that baptism was open to all descendants of converted church members? Am I correct that the article discusses both believer's and infant baptism, but calls them both baptism? I felt this aspect was a bit confusing being an outsider.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not really believer's baptism, because the children don't have to believe or profess anything—as long as the parents believe. The Cambridge Platform makes clear that infants and minors can be baptized on the basis of a parent's church membership. If someone reached adulthood without ever being baptized, before they entered the church they'd need a believer's baptism—based on their profession of faith and repentance from sin. Of course, it would be up to each congregation to decide when someone had reached "adulthood". So, conceivably, you could have someone who was 10 years old being baptized once his parents joined the church, but it was on the basis of the parent's faith. However, if a person was 30 years old and wanted to join the church and he had never been baptized, he'd have to have a believer's baptism; it would not matter if his parents had been church members because he's old enough to be judged on the basis of his own faith. The issue for this article is essentially who can receive infant or childhood baptism. Ltwin (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, clear enough.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thomas Hooker in Connecticut and John Davenport in New Haven Colony Maybe just briefly designate who these people were: "church leader so-and-so ..."

Done. Ltwin (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Adoption

• Supporters argued that to deny grandchildren ... This sentence is a bit difficult to follow for an outsider reader

I've tried to clarify that it was the grandchildren of first generation members being referenced. Ltwin (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Great. Please also clarify that their parents refers to the parents of the grandchildren—the second generation.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Ltwin (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• In 1669, the Connecticut legislature decided to approve churches that practiced the Half-Way Covenant and those that opposed it. You mean they approved both churches that practiced it, and churches that opposed it?

I changed the language from "approve" to "recognize" since what is being discussed is recognition as state churches. Ltwin (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Would you say Impact or Historical impact makes for a more accurate section title?

Done. Ltwin (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Nineteenth-century Congregationalists You mean that these were historians as well, right?

Yes, they were both Congregational clergymen who wrote early denominational histories. Ltwin (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• into their own time Meaning?

I've rewritten the sentence to be more precise. Ltwin (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• First Great Awakening Please put a time period in brackets, for readers from outside of America who don't want to follow the wikilink.

Done. Ltwin (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Broadness

Please consider to include, at least briefly discuss, the following to meet GA standards:

• As stated above, you have not spoken much on how the idea of Puritan conversion and baptism in the US had developed. In this article by Pope, downloaded here, he mentions a "rise to power" and an idea of bringing order in the new Israel as underlying causes and narratives. This is just what I could come up with a limited understanding of the topic. Perhaps there are much better sources on this.

Francis Bremer talks about it in one of his books. I'll add something to the background section. Ltwin (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Great.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Ltwin (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• The article by Pope also states that the impact of the half-way covenant was not felt much until 1675. You already mentioned that the church-goers were very scrupulous, and this seems to have limited the extent to which the covenant was accepted. Maybe that's what you meant in the last paragraph, but I couldn't quite catch it.

OK, I will work on this section to beef it up and make it more clear. Ltwin (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Mentioned this in the Controversy section. Ltwin (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• In this Brittanica article, it says The practice [Half-way Covenant] was abandoned by most churches in the 18th century when Jonathan Edwards and other leaders of the Great Awakening taught that church membership could be given only to convinced believers.. This part has not been mentioned yet.

Hmm, I'm not sure it was abandoned by most. The revivalists were stricter when it came to membership, but there was also a liberal party that still supported open membership. I'll have to look at the sources and see what I can come up with. Ltwin (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I could not find any reliable source that claimed most churches abandoned the Half-Way Covenant after the Awakening, but I did add something at the end of the article taken from Sidney Ahlstrom where he says the Awakening renewed the idea of a regenerate church. I suppose we could use the Britannica article as a source for this? Ltwin (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly can, if this is still required.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Waiting for your response now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed all the minor concerns. I will be working on the broadness concerns and clarifying that last section a bit more. Thanks again. Ltwin (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've some considerable changes to the last two sections in an attempt to improve coverage. Ltwin (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

After a second reading, there are a few point of improvement:

• The lead does not yet reflect the last section on impact very well.

I think I've addressed this. Ltwin (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The Half-Way Covenant's adoption has been interpreted by historians as signaling the decline of New England Puritanism ... This doesn't correspond very well with the "myth of declension" about which you are writing in the body of the text.

Pope questions declension but other historians, such as Sydney Ahlstrom state that the Half-Way Covenant did signal a surrender of the Puritan vision. Ltwin (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please briefly indicate both interpretations in the lead per WP:DUE.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Ltwin (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• It also permitted churches divided over the issue to separate. Perhaps split or another term makes more sense.

Done.

• Pope and Edmund Morgan found evidence of high levels of scrupulosity in Massachusetts. This reads slightly funny. Maybe just simplify the sentence a little: ... found that many church members were very scrupulous ...

Done.

• I would still have liked to have some more information from a sociological or critical-historical perspective as to why the Puritans raised their standards so high to begin with. (see Broadness) But I won't fail the article for this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I am passing the article for GA. Congratulations! I found it very interesting to read about the sincerity of the first Christian settlers in the US. If you have time, I'd request you to review the article Angulimala for GA. I've written it. Although the article's lead may appear to alien to some readers, it is actually an article with very universal themes. I'd appreciate your time to assess it. Secondly, if you submit a DYK, let me know and I might give you my thoughts on it, or even review it, should you like me to. I will see around. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

GA progress box

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Layout

Hello, this article is listed as a "Good article" but I would like some feedback on the layout. Listed under the "References" section is a "Bibliography" sub-section. As titled this section would normally be placed above the "See also" section and be works from the subject. It actually appears to be a misplaced and misnamed "Further reading" section per MOS:ORDER and further down explained under MOS:FURTHER. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The bibliography is a "a list of the books referred to in a scholarly work, usually printed as an appendix." It is essentially a list of sources that are actually cited in a given work, such as this article. If you go through the footnotes, you will see that they link to a specific entry listed in the bibliography; therefore, it is not a further reading section. See MOS:NOTES: "Several alternate titles ('Sources', 'Citations', 'Bibliography') may also be used, although each is questionable in some contexts". Ltwin (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Reply: Thanks Ltwin, After commenting I saw the "exception" under MOS:NOTES listed as Title suggesting the allowed use of "Bibliography" as an "alternate" title. I suppose it is one of those "questionable in some contexts" things, especially with the added "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications").". I also saw a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 7#Bibliography on the use and actually unsolved "confusion". I suppose I am use to seeing the consistency of an added "Notes" section (or sub-section) over a listed "Bibliography" in the references section. Otr500 (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Otr500, I'm fine changing it to something different if its confusing. Ltwin (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, and you gave a plausible rationale for the exception. I didn't look at any articles to see if there was a better way of presenting it so "if" you do know of something, maybe like the mentioned note section or subsection, or how it is better presented in other articles, then that is up to you. I was actually just randomly reading "Good" articles as a general reader (LOL- I guess that may not really be possible as an editor) and thought this out of the "ordinary". Since then I ran across Croatia that has a totally different way of presenting a large "Bibliography" section, between the "References" section and what I consider a far too large "External links" section, that I think would normally not be acceptable for a C-class article, and that Bibliography section does seem out of place to me. At least this article does show a relationship between the two. Otr500 (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

OK Otr500, I took your point and renamed the bib section to "references" which is more in line with what is commonly seen on Wikipedia. Ltwin (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will now hold out for hope that the slide will subside. I was at a loss as to how to try to "suggest" some compromise at MOS. Otr500 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)