Talk:Free Christians (Britain)

message: This articles neglects to cite sources. Several statements in particular suggest a point of view that lacks neutrality.
The article states that Free Christians are "theologically unorthodox". Are they? According to whose orthodoxy?
Why does the article suggest that it is "surprising" that Quakers have joined Churches Together? I am not surprised. Does the author hold a particular perspective which is surprised by Quaker ecumenism?
The article states that the Quakers have recruited from the Baptists. If this is true, what is the source for this statement? In a little reading I've done I found that leading Quakers had been Anglicans. Were they unusual?
What is the "creed of the Evangelical Union" to which the article refers? Of what importance to Free Christians, "orthodoxy" or the Church?
Is there any Free Christian activity in the United States or is it a British phenomenon? My understanding is that the movement Britain calls "Free Christian" is particularly active in the U.S. in the Christian Church (Disciples) and in the United Church of Christ. I'm not an expert so I am not certain but a brief note about American activities would be helpful.
The article could provide a reference to the "General Assembly of Unitarians and Free Christians" inasmuch as that it is probably Britain's major Free Christian association. The "Nonsubscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland" is another Free Christian denomination that deserves mention.  
LAWinans (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Christian

message: The discource is bewildering, paradoxal and chaotic, like it tries to prove some POV by a bad rhetorics, f.ex.:
:most Free Christians have been Arminian but, again, most Arminians are not Free Christian
is a triviality remark followed by
:The Methodists have their own creeds.
which is a well-aimed shoot-yourself-in-the-foot argument, considering the non-creed-criterion for being "free christian". The text should (if true, I suspect this article is actually an editor-conceived topic) instead say something like:
:Free Christian have been a minority group with adherents mostly among Arminians that don't accept creeds as binding statements
Or some such.
This is worse:
:As mentioned previously[unencyclopedic subclause!], Free Christians may be found within mainline Christian denominations—often under different names such as 'Progressive Christian' and/or 'Liberal Christian'.
Then I get an affirmation of my suspicion that Free Christian is actually not a valid article. There is no criterion of non-Creed to be classified as either 'Progressive Christian' or 'Liberal Christian'. I believe 'Liberal Christian' is a confusion with Liberal theology, building on primarily higher criticism and historical interpretations. 'Liberal Christian' is just a noun cluster denoting any Christian that might be "liberal" it is not a valid term. There is neither any criterion of non-Creed for Liberal Theology even though some extra bold Liberal Theology proponents have criticised common creeds for various reasons. I believe this article is an editors concoct. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article needs a radical re-write but I disagree that it is simply an editor's concoct. The term 'Free Christian' is in mainstream use in the UK. It is not just another term for non-creedal Christians because, as you know, these come in many varieties. In the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, 'Free Christian' is a self-applied label used to distinguish its adherents from Unitarianism. However, these particular 'free Christians' remain theologically unorthodox. Perhaps you are right that "Free Christian have been a minority group with adherents mostly among Arminians that don't accept creeds as binding statements". Yozzer66 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I have conducted a major edit - to try and simplify the article, and focus it on the main points. I think a brief reference and/or a link to the article on Arminianism is all that is needed, if at all --HopeRedefined (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaotic and staggering discourse

message: The external links are to bios of and books by Martineau, or to organisations mentioned in the article. There is no official webpage about "Liberal Christians", so I very much doubt that there can be a useful EL section. In case the sources are useful for developing the article, I paste them here:
* The New Affinities of Faith: A Plea for Free Christian Union, James Martineau (online book)
* Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
* General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches (UK)
* James Martineau Biography
* Unitarian Christian Association (UK)
* Way-Farers - Free Christian resource
* Free Christian Church of Unitarians and Universalists 
* Free Christian Historical Documents
It's still a pretty bad article, even after all the culling I've done. Even the title is confusing. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving all external links here 

message: The content that was for a long time the content of the article named Free Christians has been moved and used as far as I can tell as the bases for the creation of this article. This content in question is about Free Christianity in the UK and Ireland. Can anyone here tell me why it was ever moved out of the Free Christian atrial in the first place? I for one feel this content would be of best use if it was merged back into this Free Christians article. Thoughts on this development would be most appreciated. --Devin Murphy (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Straitening up Free Christian content