Talk:Christadelphians

Please read this first

A number of users seem to be using this page as a discussion forum. This page is for the purpose of discussing the content of the article on Christadelphians. Wikipedia has its own conventions on formatting. Please take the time to acquaint yourself with these, as it makes it a lot easier to follow discussions. I have rearranged the talk page, archiving some old discussion, moving some to user pages, and re-formatting some parts.

Some recommendations:

• Do set up a wikipedia account and sign in whenever you edit. This ensures there is no confusion about who is saying what. You can use a handle, e.g. RJB.
• Do end your comments on the talk page with four tildes (~) so that it is immediately obvious which user you are.
• Do indent with a semi-colon if you are replying to another user's comment.
• Do use private email (if possible) or user talk pages if you wish to discuss an issue between yourself and another user that does not involve others
• Do use two equal signs (=) to start a new section
• Don't use this page for discussing issues not relating directly to the article
• Don't use personal names if users are using handles.

Perhaps we can have less threats about 'reporting people for breaches of rules' and more effort to follow wiki convention.RJB 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion between KEM/Ecclesiastic removed to their respective user talkpages. RJB 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion between Ekklesiastic/Kevin removed to Ekklesiastic's talkpage RJB 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Role of Women

I would like to see a change in the following paragraph: Christadelphians understand the Bible to teach that male and female believers are equal in God's sight, and also that there is a distinction between the roles of male and female members. Women are typically not eligible to teach in formal gatherings of the ecclesia when male believers are present, and do not sit on ecclesial arranging committees. They do, however: participate in other ecclesial and inter-ecclesial committees; participate in discussions; teach children, other women and non-members; perform music; discuss and vote on business matters; and engage in the majority of other activities

I do not think that women 'do not sit on ecclesial arranging committes' is a correct statement. A number of ecclesias in the main body of Christadelphian ecclesias (within Australia anyway) have women on ecclesial arranging committees and women teaching and reading from the bible at formal gatherings. I see that the word typically has been inserted at the beginning of the sentence which is an improvement however I still feel that the sentence and paragraph as a whole gives off a very negative feeling about the subject. The subject of the role of women is one of great interest, change and development at the moment in the Christadelphian community and I do not feel that the current paragraph is a fair and up-to-date representation of the understanding of the community as a whole. A great number of believers disagree with these particular teachings and whilst it remains the practise in the majority of ecclesias it should be noted that many ecclesias do things differently and that there is huge variety in styles of service and worship and the roles of members between ecclesias and youth groups.

Also, why are the roles of women discussed in detail with such a negative slant while the roles of men are completely ignored? This alone is sending a message to readers that there is something 'weird' or 'wrong' about this part of Christadelphian practice. I feel the section should be re-written with emphasis on the great variety of opinion on this topic and giving examples of both positions.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katieannegeorgette (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the article with your own suggestions. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't see an awful lot wrong with the paragraph to be honest. Might need re-wording slightly but not much. Will take a good look at it. Cls14 (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable Christadelphians

I'm wondering how people feel about removing the Notable Christadelphian section until we have some actual Christadelphians to add. The people currenlty mentioned grew up in Christadelphian homes but are not Christadelphians themselves. There is also mention made of some famous academics but that should probably be taken down as well until we can add some names.Wintrlnd (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally fully agree, not sure who/why added it in the first place In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am only a "noob" at this discussion page, but I am not sure what the purpose of the section is. It fame and fortune in this world are not things to be sought after, are we saying that the lack of "notable Christadelphians" shows our success in this respect? For what it's worth, I think it would be best if the section were removed.Misterbluesplayer (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Fellowship (numbers, locations)

We're getting some traffic on the numbers of the Dawn fellowship:

• 23 Dec "Dawn = 670 (UK 200, Africa 200, Australia 200, Ontario 50, Poland and Russia 20)" (primarily BTDF estimate)
• 2 Feb Revision as of 14:56, 2 February 2010 (edit) (undo) Misterbluesplayer

Dawn = "1000+ (UK 500, Africa 200, Australia 200, Ontario 50, Poland and Russia 20, plus Ecclesias in India, Mauritius, the Philippines etc)"

• 7 Feb "Dawn = approx 1000". 17:48, 7 February 2010 (hist | diff) N User talk:86.171.63.255 ‎ (←Created page with 'Sorry should have signed in as 'Elpis' further changes made because upon reflection the number of members is enough infomration to provide, further details are not ...') * 17:45, 7 February 2010 (hist | diff) Christadelphians ‎ (→Fellowships today) (top)

I guess that reads "further details are not ... verifiable?" but got cut off? The numbers not being verifiable is true of most of countries where census information is not available, and hence most groups, not least the total number of Christadelphians of all groups (which seems to be anywhere in 55,000-65,000 range of error. But it should be possible to do better than "approx 1000" and no indication of location (probably the second most important piece of information for any user of this paragraph). We can get information by email (that is how the original numbers were obtained) but maybe Misterbluesplayer and Elpis can follow up on this and do some verification? Then put what is verifiable e.g. (UK 370-420?) Africa 200, Australia 200, etc. and reassign minor bits of information such as the individuals in Mauritius, the Philippines to a footnote? As it stands the last edit looks like a step backwards in providing meaningful and accurate information. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, Misterbluesplayer or Elpis can you verify how many Watchman in the UK, (Watchman 30 in India, cf 50 in Dawn in India)? In ictu oculi (talk)

I do know that in the last year or so, six Watchmen members have (re-)joined Dawn and at least a couple have joined Central and some have fallen asleep. I believe them now to be vary small, but don't have precise figures. Misterbluesplayer (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead improvements needed

Can someone who knows add something to the lead about what the group is about? Currently it only says how many members it has and that it is a Christian group started in the 19th century. The lead should make it clear why these people are notable other than just because a few thousand people around the world are members and they are Christians. I'm sure it's in the article somewhere but it's long and dreadfully boring and I could find it in the 30 seconds I looked. Earthdirt (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Very fair comment but it's not going to be easy to add a soundbite that really makes that point in a nutshell about how the WYSIWYG systematic theology of Christadelphians is distinctive. Theologically Christadelphians are notable as the main, and in most countries only, "Biblical Unitarian" denomination still active today - rejecting that Christ existed before his birth, or was conscious during his death, but preaching a miraculous birth, resurrection and future return. So how does that get into header-language? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rearrange order of article sections?

I wonder if the article would be more immediately interesting /readable if the history sections were moved further down, swapped with the 'Major beliefs in the Statements of Faith' section (which could be followed by the 'Other historical groups and individuals with some shared doctrines' [that section should probably follow the "belief" section anyway; preceding it is a little odd]). Those are the types of thing that people are generally going to find more interesting, after which they may want to read some of the history. Woofboy (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that (B) 'Other people with shared beliefs' coming before (A) 'Beliefs' is very odd. I suggest you go ahead and move (A) up before (B). While you're doing it if (A)

But as regards moving both A and B up before history I'm not sure that can be done, seems many if not most church articles on Wikipedia go: INTRO (which are usually better than this article), CONTENT BOX, 1. history -> 2. belief -> 3. modern organisation/practices. I may be wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good move. I have broken up Beliefs with 6 subdivider lines. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Please can we discuss the criteria used to determine which external links are added. I added a factual site on the Christadelphians, Christadelphian Research. This was removed and restored, then removed with a note suggesting it was a self promoting site. Whilst this is my site it is not self promoting. Instead it is based upon research and contains a considerable number of links elsewhere so information can be validated. Since self promoting sites were given as a reason not to be added I removed the existing two sites, because both have clearly been written to promote Christadelphian beliefs and would better fit the self promoting criteria than my own. My own site takes the form of an investigation and contains information and links to all manner of sites, including mainstream Christadelphian ones , whereas the Christadelphian sites have restricted theirs to those that simply support views Christadelphians prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.198.25 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your site says "I was disfellowshipped by the Christadelphians" so you have an axe to grind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.154.235 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it simply means that in certain respects I do not believe everything adds up the same way. Sure that means I have some personal bias against certain views. That's inevitable. No one is fully impartial and a site that promotes Christadelphians views isn't impartial either. For people to be able to get an impartial view it means they need to see different aspects and read around a topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.198.25 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You havet a site that tells people to leave the Christadelphians and that isn't just impartial it is TELLING PEOPLE TO LEAVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.154.235 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it does, actually. I would interested in knowing where. On the other hand your site are TELLING PEOPLE TO BELIEVE CHRISTADELPHIAN DOCTRINES. That's hardly impartial.81.96.198.25 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.christadelphianresearch.com/outoffellowshipchristadelphiansupportguide.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.154.235 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

that's not telling people to leave, its simply dealing with that fact that many do and its not always voluntary either81.96.198.25 (talk)