# Talk:Half-Way Covenant

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)

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)

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)