Talk:Gospel Hall Assemblies

Description

And how do they differ from normal PBs?? Malick78 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no answer to this question. There was a previous article Gospel Hall, whcih was deleted and redirected to Open Brethren, but the present article Gospel Hall was then created. I raised the same query and was told that the Gospel Halls arose from a movement in Scotland, rather than from Plymouth. I do not know enough to be able to asset whether there is one movement or two. My impression is that it is one movement, though it may have more than one origin. If so, there is a lot to be said for merging the articles. However, "Plymouth Brethren" seems to cover both the Open Brethren and the Exclusive Brethren. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gospel Hall Brethren are a sub-group of Open Brethren (of the Plymouth Brethren). This subgroup started with the influence of brethren in Scotland, true. But these Scotish brethren were connected with the Open Brethren Movement. See my other comments futher down in this discussion page. I believe there has become enough distinction between them and the Bible Chapel branch of Open Brethren in North America, that a separate article is warranted. In the very least, they need to have a dedicated section under Open Brethren. There are those, even within the movement who claim they are a distinct and separate historical phenomenon. While I disagree, until this is cleary resolved by historians, there will always be disputes. There is a reason why men like Norman Crawford (see Gathering To His Name ref below) want to teach this is a separate movement: It gives them their justification for excluding other assemblies from fellowship. It makes it much simpler for them to just believe they were never part of the Open Brethren movement in the first place. A study of the biography of Alexander Marshall, along with his connection to Ross and Munro will show this to be the case. Also, a study of Rice will show the Needed Truth connection. Alexander Marshall (Open Brethren) preached together with Ross (Gospel Hall Brethren). Sayworth (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is taken from the Plymouth Brethen talk page. :-

Ive been thinking about the various streams of the Open brethren within the UK. I have only visited half a dozen though. Here is what I think is a rough classification and from what I have seen and from what I have been told by others :-

Stream 1 : Based on very early Brethren and Muller/Groves principles. United in the bonds of love and peace, with the ability to openly discuss and agree to disagree over finer points of doctrine. Very open in regards to accepting people into fellowship.

Stream 2 : Like Stream 1, but where there is disunity and heated doctrinal arguments.

Stream 3 : Take on board Exclusive doctrine. ( the founders of the Open Brethren didnt develop finer points of doctrine and were more doers than thinkers) Unity is based on adhering to the doctrine, with the abandonment of the very early Brethren principles. Individuals are unable to develop their own convictions and are brow beaten into Exclusive teaching. Stream 3 may arise as a solution to the problems in stream 2 and is brought about by strong leadership. Accepting people into fellowship is difficult in this stream. Personally, it took me 6 months to be received into fellowship. I came from a charismatic church in which I was not convinced about the goings-on in there and failed to be moulded into a charismatic. The brethren wanted to ensure that I was not going to spread bad doctrine into the assembly meeting. Stream 3 are independent churches and therefore still have the problem of ensuring people who are put out of fellowship do not slip into fellowship somewhere else. Stream 3 churches are able to morph back into stream 1 churches with a bit of help from above and thought/action from below.

Stream 4 : An Assembly with very few people in fellowship, which therefore struggles to function effectively.--Another berean (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the only split was the Needed Truth Brethren. I am curious too,I will ask around. Things are made confusing in that an assembly may name their meeting hall as "xxx Street Gospel Hall in a particular town, just to signify that the gospel is preached but has nothing to do with Gospel Hall Brethren. I know two gospel halls quite well and both dont seem to be Gospel Hall Brethren. One of these assemblies fall in stream 1, the other in stream 3 after leaving stream 2. The above 4 streams do not describe Needed Truth Brethren.

The Gospel Hall Brethren is part of the Open Brethren movement. It's a sort of a "grey split" from that movement -- not a clean cut split. In North American, the split is much more pronounced than in the UK. Some, like Norman Crawford (of the GHB movement) have tried to show that they are a separate, unique movement with some simlarities to the Plymouth Brethren, but this is not historically accurate. A group of evangelists in Scotland who joined themselves to the Open Brethren in the late 19th century were instrumental in starting many of the assemblies in Canada and the USA. A few of these men split off and formed the Needed Truth Brethren. However, some who held parts of the Needed Truth ideas continued to teach these ideas in the assemblies they were associated with. Some of the Open Brethren assemblies with the Needed Truth teachings started to cut off from fellowship other Open Brethren whom they felt the could no longer fellowship with. But since the Open Brethren assemblies are each independent, this did not constitute a clean cut. There were too many who still moved among both groups. The Gospel Hall's in general are a sub-group of the Open Brethren. Many have completely broken fellowship with Bible Chapel brethren. But not all have. Those who have, will still fellowhip with those who have not. Yes, it can be a bit confusing to an outsider, and especially when insiders teach that they never were part of the Open Brethren movement -- which is simply not historically correct. For more information, see:

http://brethrenpedia.com/Gospel_Hall_Brethren; http://brethrenpedia.com/Needed_Truth_Brethren http://www.benrff.org/documents/Rice%20Thomas%20Hopkins.pdf

Sayworth (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong on these things.--Another berean (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand the movement started in Scotland and merged with the Open Brethren as both were pretty much the same with independent , autonomous meetings, and Scottish preachers from the Gospel Hall side went to America to spread their ways of doing things. --Another berean (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The way they differ from normal PBs is that they are not PBs at all. Although both movements began at about the same time, the people involved were different and were not connected. The Plymouth Brethren Movement included people like George Müller. The "gospel hall brethren" movement included people like Muir and Kelly. 71.10.48.39 (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As some one who has observed Brethren from the fringes, I find this confusing. My impression was that in the UK, there was essentially one movement, which may go by different names in differnt places. However because there is so little central "denominational" organisation, I am quite prepared to beleive that the situation can exist where A is in fellowship with B and C but B and C are not in fellowship withe each other. What is needed is some one who knows all aspects and can produce an authorative account (properly referenced), or alternatively merge this article with Plymouth Brethren, but add more material on the stated alternative Scottish origin. Whatever their respective origins, if they are not functionally distinct movements today, there should be a single article. If that becomes too large (which is unlikely), articels on the two separate origins (only) could be forked into separate articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There aren't many sources on the origins of the Plymouth brethren and the gospel halls, but one of the best is found in a short book written by a preacher named Norman Crawford. The text is online here: http://gospelhall.org/about-the-church/norman-crawford--gathering-unto-his-name/gathering-unto-his-name--histoy-of-assemblies.html . Alinnisawest (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that many find the Gospel Hall brethren to be confusing. In an effort to justify why some Bible Chapels are excluded from their fellowship, they have resorted like Norman Crawford, to teaching they were always a distinct movement from the Open Brethren. But this is simply untrue. Yes, their roots are in Scotland, but those men at their roots were indeed in fellowship with the Open Brethren. To teach that they had not connection is a historical error. Anyone who does a little research on Alexander Marshall, and his connections with Ross and Munro, and their connection with Rice will find this to be true. It was the Needed Truth teaching which influenced some of the Scotish men and their spirtual descendents to move away from the "more open" of the Open Brethren. They are not a separate movement, but a sub-group within the Open Brethren. Even then the line of demarcation is not always clear and clean cut.Sayworth (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The links here to Alexander Marshall are to the wrong one.

The following recent addition is disputed. It is taught by those within the Gospel Hall Movement in North America to justify their common (but not universal) practice of excluding believers from other Open Brethren assemblies. But it is not historically accurate: "Although those in the Gospel Halls hold similar beliefs to the Plymouth Brethren and both movements began around the same time, they were distinct and separate movements, involving different groups of people." .Sayworth (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Progress

This article at least seems to be beginning to explore some of the finer distinctions within the Brethren movement. I have remvoed a few red links, which look to me as if they are not needed at all or would be redirects to this article. It is undesirable to have a lot of paralell articles covering the same ground, as they are liable to develop so as to contradict each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I despair at this incredibly poorly written and poorly researched article. I have moved among Gospel Halls all my life and much that is written here is inaccurate and clearly written by folk who know very little about the history and workings of assemblies meeting in Gospel Halls. The history of the Gospel Halls in England differs from that in Scotland, Ireland and North America. Only the fact that the editors of Wikipedia know nothing and care nothing about Gospel Halls is such a poor article allowed to continue on Wikipedia. It's this kind of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Journalist492 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Journalist492 above, I am inserting a new second paragraph to try to clarify from the start that Gospel Hall Brethren are primarily a North American distinction. In the UK many (most?) Gospel Halls would not agree with the reception policy of so-called Gospel Hall Brethren in North America. Gospel Hall Brethren distinctives seem to be more common in Scotland than in England.

The name originates from the North American practice, where Gospel Hall Brethren can be distinguished from other Open Brethren fellowships by the common practice of meeting in buildings called Gospel Halls. Other Open Brethren in North America typically call their meeting places Bible Chapels. In the United Kingdom and other parts of the world many Open or Christian Brethren fellowships meet in Gospel Halls. However, these often do not share the distinctive beliefs and practices of the so-called Gospel Hall Brethren in North America, although some do. Outside of North America the nature of an Open Brethren fellowship cannot so easily be identified by the name of their meeting place.

This article still needs a major clean-up, but hopefully the above will help prevent people getting the wrong idea. - David--86.166.43.199 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Category from Gospel Hall Brethren

Why did you remove the Christian denominations category from the Gospel Hall Brethren article? Doesn't it count as one? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Category pages will only show 200 articals at a time -- and there are many Christian denominations than that on Wikipedia, so Christian denominations pages are best not placed in Christian denominations.

A denominations page, like Gospel Hall Brethren, should be put in something like Brethren denominations, if there were a such a category-- and that category be made a subcat of Christian denominations. In the case of Gospel Hall Brethren, the Category:Plymouth Brethren is the best there is-- and already there, so the Category:Christian denominations is not needed.

If you want to divide Category:Brethren denominations out of Category:Plymouth Brethren, go ahead.--Carlaude ^(talk) 09:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

AS some one who frequently comments on the Categories for discussion pages, I would suggest that the proposal is a good idea. The case has strongly been made that the subject of this article is not merely a variety of Plymouth Brethren (as I once thought). Accordingly, Plymouth Brethren, Gospel Hall Brethren, Exclusive Brethren, and any others there may be should all be sub-categories of some other such as Category:Brethren denominations, whose name should be chosen so as to be inoffensive to any group properly included. Articles should not appear both in the Parent and the Child categories. It may be that other movenments similarly need to be forked out, such as Pentecostal. Nevertheless, a category which can only have a handful of articles is an unsatsfactory one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

*blink* Wow, for a second I thought I'd accidentally posted that here insteda of on Carlaude's talk page, but I see that you moved it here instead. I agree with the idea of "Brethren denomination"; it was Carlaude's removal of "Christian denomination" without any explanation or addition of the correct categorization that threw me off. Rather than use a tool that only leaves a very basic edit summary, next time could you please edit it by hand and leave a good explanatory summary? It would save us all a lot of confusion. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: seeing that the new category already existed, I changed it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I was wondering if this page shouldn't be combined with the "Gospel Halls" page. The content is similar enough to describe in a single article. Keeping the name "Gospel Hall Brethren" would seem logical. 3nails (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to suggest that you should follow the procedure for puting up a "merge" proposal, which involves tagging both articles. I think the argument may be made that a Gospel Hall is a building, whereas this article is about the Christian Denomination whose buildings often bear that name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, for re-positioning my comment. Firstly, the Gospel Hall article seems to include just a couple of sentences about their buildings and the rest seems more about the Brethren themselves. Secondly, I doubt that very many Christian groups on Wikipedia have separate articles dedicated just to their places of worship - unless they're historical churches perhaps. To me, a "Bulidings" section inside the Gospel Hall Brethren article would probably suffice. 3nails (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably appropropriate. I would suggest that you include something like "Most groups of Christians worshipping in Gospel Halls belong to the Gospel Hall Brethren, one of a number of groups of Open Brethren. For details of their beliefs and forms of worship see those articles". This should discourage officious people from expanding the buildings article. Having duplicate articles in WP is undesirable, as they are inclined to expand in different ways and end off contradicting each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying all this for me it seems that I have been in "The Gospel Hall Brethren" for the last 26 years without knowing of this title. I was counted as a Roman Catholic until my conversion in 1984. The point being that if someone were to "join" The Gospel Hall Brethren after their conversion they are suddenly categorised in a sub section of Christanity rather than simply being a Christian who gathers with other Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.240.39 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Peterkingiron and 3nails, I am resurrecting the idea of merging the Gospel Hall Brethren into the Plymouth Brethren main article. In the 5 years since Sayworth transferred it from an article he wrote on Brethrenpedia.com it has only managed to garner a handful of paragraphs, has two Wikipedia caution boxes at its head, and has never justified itself as a separate article from the main "Brethren article". The premise at the start of the article, that the name Gospel Hall originates in North America, is not historically accurate. I do not have the expertise to actually perform a merge, but if the main contributors to this article agree to it can we please proceed? Journalist492 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

With no response to my merge proposal of 15th August, I have done a major rewrite of the article generally tidying up and introducing a list of beliefs for the first time. The article has for a long time been very poorly put together, perhaps reflecting the fact that it hardly warrants a separate article, but should be part of the main "Plymouth Brehtren" page. Up until now, anyone looking at the "Gospel Hall brethren" would have thought it was simply some kind of "North American thing". The article, before I edited it, played heavily on the Gospel Hall/Chapel issue in North America, which in the wide sphere of things is not the "big picture" worldwide in Gospel Halls. It it is not helpful IMHO to have separate articles on Gospel hall Brethren, Chapel Brethren, Kerala Brethren etc. The distinctions are too fine for the average person who is doing research on Wikipedia into "the brethren". I am still in favour of a merge with the "Plymouth Brethren" if there is some consensus and someone with the practical skills Journalist492 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@Journalist492: This major rewrite has generally made the article easier to read, but the problem is that it now somewhat defeats the purpose of a separate “Gospel Hall Brethren” article, perhaps adding support to the proposal to merge it back into “Plymouth Brethren”.

You say that ‘up until now, anyone looking at the "Gospel Hall brethren" would have thought it was simply some kind of "North American thing"’, but that is essentially true, it is a distinction primarily made in North America. “Gospel Hall Brethren” are one side of an informal division among Open Brethren in North America where those rejecting the doctrine of “One Body” reception to the Lord's Supper can usually be identified by meeting in a “Gospel Hall” as opposed to a “Chapel” . They are sometimes called Closed-Open Brethren (Open Brethren with a closed table) because they only permit members of their own assembly and those carrying a letter from a recognised assembly to join in the Lord’s Supper (communion). This is what led to the distinctive designation of Gospel Hall Brethren.

In the UK and elsewhere “Gospel Hall” is just one of the many names used for the meeting places of Open Brethren; together with some Needed Truth Brethren, Exclusive Brethren and occasionally groups not associated with the Brethren Movement. Open Brethren outside of North America use a variety of names for their meeting places, Gospel Hall or xxx Hall is most common in the UK, xxx Chapel is also still used, as it was from the beginning (e.g. Raleigh Chapel in Plymouth & Bethesda Chapel in Bristol). A variety of other names including Evangelical Church/Chapel or Gospel Church/ Chapel are also used. Some of these follow the reception policy of North American Gospel Hall Brethren, but many do not. Unlike in North America, the name of the building generally indicates little about the nature of the Brethren group meeting there or of their reception policy.

Originally, this article was written from a North American perspective and was misleading regarding the situation elsewhere, because many (most?) Brethren elsewhere do not operate a closed table. I tried to clarify this by adding a paragraph “The name originates from the North American practice, where Gospel Hall Brethren...” (see above under Progress). Now the article broadly reflects the situation among Open Brethren in the UK (at least among the more traditional/conservative groups). The term “Gospel Hall Brethren” is rarely used in the UK, although I have encountered it a few times recently (maybe due to Wiki influence). Open Brethren, Christian Brethren or Plymouth Brethren are more common.

My suggestion would be to merge into a single Open Brethren article which would cover the chief characteristics/distinctives of Open Brethren and also note the diversity. This Gospel Hall Brethren article would link to that and include a note about its distinctive use in North America. The original Plymouth Brethren movement split into the Open and Exclusive streams within twenty years of the beginning and my feeling is that a single “Plymouth Brethren” article would be too all-encompassing. Also many people associate “Plymouth Brethren” with the extreme Taylorite Group. On the other hand, there is a problem with people adding material to an article about a PB sub-group which is also applicable to other or all PB subgroups. Ideally a “Plymouth Brethren” article should describe the original movement and principles and then PB sub-group articles like “Open Brethren”, “Needed Truth Brethren” etc should describe what is distinctive to those sub- groups, but that’s difficult to manage on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D261 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

D261, do you know enough about the Wiki skills to merge everything into a single Open Brethren article? I think merging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Brethren and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_Hall_Brethren would be helpful Journalist492 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Journalist492: I will try to have a look at it, but it will probably not be for a few weeks as I'm busy with other things at the moment. In the meantime I'm happy for anyone else to give it a go. --D261 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- I was involved in monitoring (perhaps moderating) this articel when it was under construction. At that time it was stated that there were two denominations in America, which caused difficulties when they had an English visitor, who had to opt for one or the other; whereas in England it was all one group. It seems to me that Plymouth Brethren ought to be a dab-page to lead to articles on each group, but fine distinctions between similar groups should be covered in a single Open Brethren article. Perhaps the "Plymouth Brethren" article could instead be a short one setting out where the Exclusive and Open Brethren agree and where they differ, leading to "main" artickles on each. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that Gospel Halls have a distinct history from the history of the Plymouth Brethren. There are historical connections between the two, but they are mostly parallel histories that need to be differentiated. It would therefore be a mistake to put the current article as a sub-section of a larger PB article.3nails (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Abuse Cases

I removed a paragraph about "child abuse" one sentence of which read "[someone's] caution was concealed from the [...] assembly by one of the elders [name cited]." Such a sentence clearly indicates that this was posted in an attempt to put a contributor's local grievance into the public domain by accusing an individual member of one Gospel Hall in the UK of malpractice. Whatever the truth of the two cases cited, it is an abuse of Wikipedia to use it as a public forum for the airing of localised personal grievances. Were there evidence that child abuse was widespread, or had been knowingly covered up wholesale for many years (see the paragraph under Roman Catholic Church) the information would be in the public interest. Such is not the case here. Journalist492 (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.201.99 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On 22nd August I removed the abuse section that had reappeared. Whoever keeps putting this section back in is not interacting on this talk page to make the case for their actions, which speaks volumes Montague80 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The constant reintroduction of this section is looking a little like deliberate vandalism especially as the author refuses to interact on the talk page. There are three reasons for omitting it; 1) this is an information page about a group of christians and not a news board for posting latest misdemeanours, regardless of how serious they may be; 2) this is an article describing a global groups of christians, thus including sections describing events in Surrey, UK is inappropriate (were the same editorial standard be applied to the article as a whole it would quickly become unwieldy); 3) Allan Cundick is nowhere near as famous as the article suggests.

If you wish to include this, please interact on the talk page prior to doing so. Every other attempt will be reverted as vandalism. 86.155.208.57 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the same edit and note again that the user refuses to interact on the talk page. Once again please interact prior to making your suggested changes 86.155.208.57 (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The constant bombardment of what is an information page for a group of Christians across the globe is becoming tiresome. I have written to wikipedia for advice, but does anyone have any ideas as to how to address this? 86.128.216.56 (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I acknowledge the difficulty here. You might apply for some form of page protection, although having flicked through this policy I'm not sure this page qualifies at present. See also the noticeboards. Please leave me a message on my talk page and let me know how this pans out. If it gets out of hand (major edit war, or persistent vandalism, etc) drop me a line and I'll wade in. Nick Levine (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly let me say that I believe all the above comments are made by a single contributor who has been banned at one time for sock puppeting, and who quite clearly considers the page to be his own personal property. Wikipedia is not a collection of information pages for various groups of people, it is an encyclopedia with information on various subjects including both the good and bad. Allan Cundick's case is significant in that he was a well known preacher, author and compiler of a hymn book, and significantly Ian Jackson is one of the best known evangelists in the Gospel Halls. As the article points out the trial judge said that Jackson 'was rightly investigated by the police.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.138.65 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed references to two individuals and their associated crimes from the page. As others have stated, this entry is not in keeping with other content on the page, which is intended to describe (generally) the doctrine and practices of Gospel Halls worldwide - not the crimes of an individual in a specific/independent church. I have no desire to protect these individuals or their reputation from their sickening actions, but this page is not the place for such news to be published. Were it to be used for such a purpose, where would it end? There are not other personal references on the page, other than historical. While I agree the crimes of Cundick are reprehensible in the extreme, I fail to see any value in citing them here. These men are not known outside the UK, have no influence generally over independent Gospel Halls around the world, which certainly have a right to be described fairly on Wikipedia without an absurd association to some crime with which they have no connection JEH117818 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The page was reverted again to remove references to child abuse by an individual in the UK. This entry has no relevance to the page topic, is inconsistent with the nature of existing content, and creates an unsustainable precedent (i.e. Whose crimes and sins get published and whose do not?). To the individual who wishes this content to be included, please engage in a constructive dialogue here before once again adding this unanimously rejected content.67.183.175.251 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Same as above. Bennett.wm.1612 and any others who want this information on individuals in the UK added to this page, please engage in a constructive dialogue here before once again adding this content. JEH117818 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 Page Protection

Wikipedia administration has approved a request for temporary semi-protection of the page due to repeated edit warring and rules violations related to posting under the now deleted "Abuse Cases" section. The category itself and the material being added was not relevant to the page topic (see below) and, although sourced, was in violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons.

As stated previously, the crimes of Cundick and the misdeeds of others related to his case are not in any way relevant to the history and doctrine of Gospel Hall Brethren assemblies worldwide, which is the topic of this page. Cundick, while well known in the UK, has never had any interaction with or influence over thousands of independent Gospel Hall assemblies around the world. Cundick's crimes have no more relevance to this page than any other common criminal and no sound argument has been presented why the actions of this one individual should be cited here.

When this page is unprotected on 7-Dec, 2014, new attempts to reintroduce this content without prior discussion and editorial consensus here on the talk page will be treated as vandalism. The edits will be reverted and new protection of the page will be requested. Please don't mistake these actions as an attempt to somehow conceal Cundick's crimes or steal a voice from his victims. On the contrary, these actions have been taken to avoid unfairly connecting thousands to Cundick who have never even heard of the man. Thanks, and I'm quite happy to have a dialogue here with any who wish to discuss why Cundick's crimes should be included on the Gospel Hall Brethren page. JEH117818 (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you.

Beliefs

I have removed the sentence that infers that there are other streams within the Open Brethren movement that have reconsidered their stance on the cessation of the sign gifts and the Charismatic movement generally. It seems to draw upon a hypothetical scenario presented in a FAQ section on a gospel hall website, that demonstrates how another assembly would be dealt with if such a thing were to occur. It should not be taken as evidence that such a thing has happened, unless of course, further evidence can be linked? I look forward to some interaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktruthjourno (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing. I've reinserted the sentence and have provided several citations. You were right to say that better evidence needed to be provided — Wikipedia demands that all claims must be verifiable, so THANK YOU for insisting on that. One is a book written by a Canadian Brethren theologian (Ernest Tatham, co-founder of Emmaus Bible College, who did an about-face in 1976. Another is a reference to Willem Ouweneel, a Dutch Brethren theologian. He's still an elder in a Brethren assembly in Holland; he now endorses T.B. Joshua (a Nigerian faith healer) and travels with a Pentecostal missions group led by the fiery Pentecostal preacher Matteus van der Steen. Two of them are to Te Atatu Bible Chapel, a Brethren assembly in New Zealand which embraced the charismatic movement in the late 1970s; by the end of the ensuing decade, it was the largest Brethren assembly in New Zealand. Others are to Brethren websites, some of them with downloadable sermons, mostly from New Zealand (because that's the part of the world I'm most familiar with). There's also a citation by Johnson Philip — an opponent of the charismatic movement, but he acknowledges its impact on the Brethren in India (disapprovingly, of course). Then there is the citation linking to Brethren preacher Lui Ponifasio (from Life Church, Manurewa, one of New Zealand's largest Brethren assemblies). I suggest you download his address to the 2012 GC3 Conference (GC3 is the major Brethren missions organization in New Zealand) — that's in one the citations, too. But don't say I didn't warn you! It blew all my fuses — and I say that as one who has attended a Pentecostal church for the best part of 20 years). David Cannon (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I figured you'd have some ready to fly! How about changing the whole sentence to 'some churches have reconsidered' rather than 'some streams?' You have provided 7 instances, which even if they were all in the UK (the region I am most familiar with) would constitute less than 1% of total Open Brethren churches. Hardly representative, and not a good basis to support the use of the word 'stream' which suggests a much wider influence. For example, I know of none in the UK that claim to be Open Brethren and accept the Charismatic movement, although they might have been Open Brethren at a point in history. I'll refrain from making the change until I've heard back from you because I'd like to hear your POV Talktruthjourno (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Actually, the references I provided were mostly from New Zealand. A couple were from India. One was Dutch. One was Canadian. Perhaps we could word it "Some Brethren churches outside of the Gospel Halls", or something like that. From New Zealand, I know of (and can prove from sermons downloadable from their websites) about 25 Brethren assemblies (out of c. 200) that have embraced the Charismatic movement - but they are among the largest aassemblies in the country, so they represent a lot more than a tenth of the Brethren membership. (I don't think they're a majority, but they are numerically very significant). As for Brethren in the UK — I have two sources, one positive and one negative. Both say that the charismatic movement is operating in some Brethren churches — one approves and one doesn't. I'll look up the references and put them in when I get home tonight. I prefer the term "streams" to "churches" because there is a lot of networking among the Brethren. Gospel Halls tend to network more with other Gospel Halls than with Bible Chapels, for example. Ditto for assemblies that embrace the charismatic movement — Life Church, Manurewa would have a lot more to do with Street City Church, Wellington, than with Tawa Gospel Hall, for example. (BTW, yes, these are all Brethren assemblies and listed as such on [The Brethren website]). I don't think we need to flood the article with references — a few representative examples should be sufficient. And, to answer a point I think you may be implying, nowhere does my edit say or imply that anything like a majority of non-Gospel Hall Brethren are charismatic — it only says "some".

David Cannon - this feeds into the issue I raised with you a few weeks ago about the "Open Brethren" page and the "Gospel hall Brethren" page. You have proved above that some of the Open Brethren have gone charismatic. However, from my experience, no Gospel Halls have. If this GHB page is about the "conservative stream" of the OBM - the Gospel Halls - then the movement on the gifts issue does not belong here. Am I making sense? Journalist492 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, I know of no charismatic Gospel Halls. If it ever did happen, I'm pretty sure that they would stop calling themselves Gospel Halls. I think it is relevant to this article in passing — in that it is a distinct feature on which the Gospel Halls are not prepared to compromise. Just in passing, my edit tries to contrast that with some of their fellow-Brethren. For comparison, see some of Wikipedia's articles on other denominations and sub-groups there of. A subgroup is often contrasted with other subgroups to show how it's distinct.David Cannon (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Citation for British Brethren : "The charismatic movement has profoundly affected assemblies. Whilst many who have experienced renewal themselves have left Brethren churches and are conspicuous by their presence as leaders in other churches, particularly the house church movement, there is, nevertheless, a small but not insignificant number of Brethren churches that still consider themselves within the circle of the Brethren although they have embraced certain practices associated with the charismatic movement. These churches seem to be growing-some dramatically so. The point hasbeen made that, alongside other positive trends, this actually tends to deepen the crisis of identity among Brethren churches."

• • Another citation, by a British Brethren writer: "Neither should the charismatic dimension be shunned. If the Holy Spirit is operating today in signs and wonders and other gifts then it is necessary to be part of it. It is a great tragedy that many of God’s people are not wholly involved in what He is doing to day in His world."

• • Yet another citation by a British Brethren preacher who DOES NOT support the charismatic movement, but bitterly complains that it is happening in Brethren circles : " Companies who have no history of adherence to New Testament church principles are included [in the Brethren directory]. Meetings to which any believer with a modicom of light would never venture near. Yet they are listed as if conforming to the pattern we attempt to imitate. Some of the practices I have evidence of include clerisy, the sisters taking an audible part, speaking in tongues, many other "charasmatic" features and any amount of musical accompaniment at all the meetings, even the "Breaking of Bread" when this is (infrequently) held."

• • • Well, I said I'd give you two sources about the British Brethren. I've ended up giving you three. I agree with Journalist492 that these citations don't belong in this article, however. We cannot "flood" the article with references to other Brethren — as I said, they should be mentioned in passing, for comparison, but not dwelt on. I've listed them here so that you can know that yes, I have done my homework and can source what I'm talking about. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about — I was brought up Brethren, and my roots (especially on my mother's side) are very strongly in that tradition. If the charismatic movement had been as widely accepted among the New Zealand Brethren when I was young as it is now, I would never have left. But I'm not basing what I write on personal knowledge: Wikipedia goes by sourced material — and I think you can see there is plenty of it.David Cannon (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You assume incorrectly David. I'm not suggesting that you say a majority, but I do wonder why you are insisting on it being in, given the point made above that this article is about the Gospel Hall Brethren. Surely a statement about what they do believe is all that is required in a list like that, rather than an explanation that there are some who disagree? I'm sure there are others that disagree with other points, for example, the premillennial return of Christ, but there is no further information provided about that. It looks odd and out of place. Further, it's an awkward construction. You shouldn't have a full stop within a bulleted list if I remember correctly? Maybe that is why it looks so out of place. Talktruthjourno (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Now that I've thought about it for a couple of days, Talktruthjourno, I think I get your point. This article is indeed about the Gospel Hall Brethren and shouldn't have too much distracting information about other Brethren "groups" (for want of a better term). What I was trying to do was emphasize that the Gospel Halls represent a "purist" strain of Brethrenism; I mentioned the charismatic movement among other Brethren as a minority, but one that is tolerated —hoping to making the point that the Gospel Halls would NEVER tolerate that kind of deviation from what they consider to be orthodoxy. Originally, I was hoping to expand it with other comparisons (not just the charismatic one), but I now see that would only de-focus the article. With that in mind, I think I'll take out the stuff I put in. Instead, I propose to put a sentence in the introduction simply saying that the Gospel Halls hold to what they consider to be a "pure" strain of Brethren teaching, and have a policy of not cooperating with churches (Brethren or otherwise) that don't share it. David Cannon (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the discussion. I think the changes that you have made are a great improvement. Thanks for your help. Talktruthjourno (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • You're welcome:-) David Cannon (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gospel Hall Assemblies. 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/20120920015914/http://www.jstl.org.uk/e107/page.php?13 to http://www.jstl.org.uk/e107/page.php?13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327225858/http://yonkerschristianassembly.com/246893.ihtml to http://yonkerschristianassembly.com/246893.ihtml

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gospel Hall Assemblies. 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/20120901114006/http://www.truthandtidings.com/issues/2000/t20001010.php to http://www.truthandtidings.com/issues/2000/t20001010.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404030431/http://www.workersliberty.org/story/1998/01/13/inla-and-irish-national-question to http://www.workersliberty.org/story/1998/01/13/inla-and-irish-national-question
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830184107/http://www.truthandtidings.com/issues/2012/t20120801.php to http://www.truthandtidings.com/issues/2012/t20120801.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)