Talk:Unamended Christadelphians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

There are a number of issues on the page, as it currently stands, that are in need of change or investigation. I will list them here as time allows me to make them.

The page currently says "This change pitted Roberts (in favor of the amendment) against Williams and Andrews; all had been former allies against Turney's teachings."

1. John James Andrew's name is misspelled on the page. It was John James Andrew, not John James Andrews
2. The claim is made that Williams and Andrew were "former allies against Turney's teachings". The way this is written it sounds like Williams and Andrew worked together against Turney's teachings. I am wondering on what basis this claim is made.
   1. Best I can tell, Williams was immersed Sunday January 15th 1865 by William Lainge, the associate of George Dowie: Mumbles, South Wales from The Early History of the Gospel of the Kingdom. By 1866 there was a movement at Mumbles away from George Dowie and William Laing by the ecclesia at Mumbles. When you read accounts of the problems during the early years at Mumbles it seems unlikely that Thomas Williams would have been prepared to deal with Edward Turney's teachings only a few years later 1872/1873. Not impossible but it seems unlikely.
   2. I did a search on "Thomas Williams" in The Christadelphian and his name occurs one time in 1872: when he moved from Mumbles South Wales to Chicago. There is no mention of "Thomas Williams being an ally against the teachings of Turney or of any work he did against Turney's teachings in concert with Roberts and Andrew. Again, one mention of Williams in 1875 where he reports ecclesial news; and two mentions in 1880. The Christadelphian Advocate did not start publication until 1885 so he could not have been an ally through The Christdelphian Advocate Magazine. Perhaps there is documentary evidence that he participated as an ally with Andrew, but I am wondering what that evidence is.
   3. I do not doubt that he never accepted Turney's teachings. What I question is the claim that "all had been former allies against Turney's teachings" seeing that Williams was not involved (as far as I can tell) in the controversy.
3. The article says, "Practically, this change made a belief in the “enlightened rejector” a requirement of fellowship." The article does not mention that the belief in the "enlightened rejector" had been made a matter of fellowship already in a number of documentable ways:
   1. The North London ecclesia who's statement of faith was drawn up largely by J. J. Andrew had made the ER a test of fellowship -J. J. Andrew's 1887 statement of faith.
   2. The Christadelphian, in 1883 (still well prior to the Responsibility Controversy) notes on page 241; withdrawal "from ten who are not able to see that unbaptised and knowing rejecters of the truth are responsible" (1884, p. 190), and this action upheld by Roberts (1884, p. 382).
   3. Those who changed the SOF in 1898 stated, ""We reaffirm Proposition XXIV.. in the following amplified terms and we fellowship only those who hold the same doctrine: '.. the responsible (namely those who know the revealed will of God and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living -- obedient and disobedient...' ". In other words, their view, and the view of the majority of Christadelphians in the world who adopted the modified language was that the BASF explicitly said was the BSF said, but in clearer language. Whereas in 1909 when "the BUSF was revised and clarified" (eg. "amended") its changes were more significant including the dropping of doctrine that had hitherto been a test of fellowship