Talk:Two by Twos

I've removed these edits which were summarized with...

I removed the erroneous statement that "members are told to deny any church name" and gave one explanation for why any name(s) exist at all. Also, removed the word "only" in "salvation is only available" because that is flatly not the case. God saves whomever He saves. It is true where the gospel has been preached, those who reject it may miss out. But what most ministers would say is that such matters are in God's hand. It is possible to accept every word preached and nevertheless "lose out."

Please note that article lead sections are used to summarize the referenced material in an article's body. Personal experience and research is not suitable for inclusion in articles, and instead the material in articles are to be referenced to published source materials. If you wish to add material with alternative viewpoints, please do so within the body of the article (not simply alter the lead section) with reliable references to back up your statements. • Astynax ^talk 21:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like you removed edits /info that was correct 134.215.4.36 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Astynax has a history of using deceptive and creative authoring to portray his own false view of this group. It is true that a name doesn't exist except for where it is required for specific legal reasons, and there isn't a single name used in any of these cases for the group as a whole. It's not a true representation that members are told to deny having a name, as though they are told to lie about a name that exists. Tmtsoj (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For you information, I have removed the comment about the name (which was in a sentence about the trinity) up to the top where there were comments about the name. Tmtsoj (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The use of 'claimed' is deprecated, see MOS:CLAIM, as imappropriately implying doubt and hence a lack of a NPOV on the part of the editor, with the Wikipedia guideline recommending the use of alternatives. Jontel (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, although there is ample reason in sources to support implications of doubt regarding many of this church's "claims" (including self-contradictions in practices, doctrines, and histography). I have, however, reworded to reduce the repetition of that term. • Astynax ^talk 19:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I may end up undoing most of the recent edits by Luvlornlia that was described as "added details to certain paragraphs that most people may not know", but would like to discuss first. I will acknowledge that Wikipedia is a place that people come to find information that they "may not know", but we need to be careful that it isn't just a reflection of personal experience rather than something that is universal, and also that the personal experience also doesn't disagree other parts of the article other other experience of the group. For example, the addition of "While rules are not strictly 'enforced' and vary between families, the church ultimately values complete and total dedication to the doctrine", seems to simultaneously say that there are no consistent rules (varies between families) which aren't strictly enforced anyway, while also valuing "complete and total dedication" to a "doctrine" that is not clearly defined and variable. It seems confusing and contradictory.

Luvlornlia is misrepresenting the reality that this is more an unofficial and loose group of people with a common faith and purpose, and who do not have a doctrine or official canon like a typical church organisation has, and therefore it isn't accurate to present this group as if it has official doctrine or rules. Tmtsoj (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

TLDR: Agree with Tmtsoj’s characterization of a community with common faith and purpose, rather than an organization with official doctrine or cannon.

I agree with Tmtsoj that representing this group to have formal rules or officialized doctrine (as typically analyzed in institutional churches) is an inaccurate representation. Care should be made to delineate discussions through a cultural, versus doctrinal, lens.

I agree that the quoted edits they highlighted were contradictory and an introduction of bias.

I agree there is significant potential for bias introduced on this topic, which is present through all sources reviewed, whether journalist commentary, theologian critique (generally from established churches in creedal traditions, generally historical and reactionary to preaching outside of or in opposition to the established churches), social critique (typically interviewing people who were abused as a child while a member of the group, or reporting thereon), former members exit letters, and a website and publications by a former member, including publications of old journals and private letters etc which are all posted publically by the former member.

…

This is a nondenominational community characterized by biblical primitivism and Christian simplicity. Practically, shared commonalities are a shared faith in God and the Bible, a personal practice of studying the Bible and sharing reflections in meetings, and in-group identification.

There appear many enmeshed elements of shared culture modified by the fact that it has spread internationally to many cultural contexts. Personal communication channels and in-group identification hold it together as a community. Perceived social rules are generally in-group social conformation pressures based on exposure to social homogeneity. Some are interpretations of doctrine (eg non-conformity to the world, separation from the world) variably applied by individuals to through their cultural lens and projected to their local sub-communities as an expectation. While power dynamics may create the impression of the existence of rules at a local level, most of these are not rigid rules at the global, cross-cultural community level and should not be represented as such.

The doctrine section exists because external publications and commentators discuss it as though there was a published codified doctrine, as one may approach analyzing a formal church denomination. As such, its subtitles reflect the study of theology as is applied to the group in external commentary and analysis, whether or not this is valid. I do think this organization is helpful. However given the lack of surveys, creeds, or representative statements, all accounts can only be anecdotal and it is unclear if any of what has been said is representative of the global community. Even the section of speakers quotes provided from speakers in the oral tradition is a handful of speakers that may not be representative of the global community.

Further, given the international lay ministry, again coming from different cultural contexts, characterizing doctrines using classical Christian theological terminology is limited, since those have historical associations with creedal theological terminology that implies a conceptual developmental lineage, and in this context individuals’ beliefs are derived from personal interpretations of scripture, their cultural context, and their oral tradition within the community. Given the lack of formal religious training, the insular nature of the group, and high intergenerational retention rates with likely limited exposure to other theological discourse, this could possibly be informed by but is theoretically distinct from mainstream theological evolutions and creedal tradition, or terms developed to distinguish a belief in opposition to another belief in the context of mainstream Christian orthodoxy and theological debate. Since it is a lay ministry without a creed, individual variation may exist in personal interpretations, conceptualizations, and terminology used to share beliefs.

The 2x2 ministry does contain an organizing structure, so polity itself is more clearly definable than culture and representative theologies.

All that said, culture can also be studied and described in generalities, however caution should be made to distinguish between a cohesive community and an organized denomination; between external commentary on beliefs and doctrine versus representative or endorsed doctrine; and when an assertion is truly generalizable or when it is asserted to be generalizable (potentially without basis) by the cited source. Evidence Review (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Also more directly as a reply to the point regarding edits to clarify the conflicting assertions: The friction between heterogeneity and homogeneity in how this group is described is an important point, and creates a challenge here not to misrepresent the global community and to reflect and focus on what is universal, while what little has been published is from relatively few individuals in relatively few countries. As mentioned, the doctrine of separation and the doctrine of non-conformity to the world are “doctrines” known in the broader Christian and religious context, and can be described as evidenced here based on characteristic behaviours, however again there is no formal representative endorsement of these (or any) doctrines by this community. Further, the application of doctrines are always filtered through cultural and regional contexts to produce sociocultural norms and expectations that may be variable. The doctrine may be generally a prevalent belief in the community, but the way it is implemented through different individuals’ perspectives, and across different cultural contexts, may produce variability in social norms when comparing regions at a broader global community level, or between individuals and families, despite the majority of those people sharing a belief in the doctrine. This is evidenced by citations documenting differences in different regions (eg wine vs grape juice for sacraments) or across time (eg common dress), as well as would fit the prior editors anecdote highlighting family variability. Same value, same doctrine, different contexts & interpretations, different localized perceptions and reports of “social rules”.

I’ve attempted to reflect this through organizing the commentary in these portions of the page under separation from the world, non-conformity to the world, and cultural variability. Hope that helps with page clarity. Evidence Review (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted multiple WP:BOLD edits and restructuring of this article which cannot be addressed individually due to the both the variety of potentially problematic issues and sheer number of intervening edits (often occurring the same day). I invite editors active here to comment, and I will also request eyes at WP:X to take a look at this and offer any input they may have to offer. • Astynax ^talk 20:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Astynax and fellow editors,

I have been conducting a literature review on minority sects, and reviewed in depth the published and grey literature on the Two by Two’s over recent months. This has included an extensive review of sources’ references until primary sources were identified.

Further details later, but as a brief overview:

Regarding POVs:

There are generally nine main POV categories on this movement:

- Historian academia

- Religious scholars in academic journals (Lutheran & Catholic)

Priests quoted in newspapers

- Protestant Christian anti-cult movement ministries

- Interfaith religious tolerance organization

- Previous members (books, newspaper quotes, online websites)

Ministers (newspaper quotes, sworn testimony, collections of quotes and letters self-published by prior members and attributed to ministers)

- Newspaper opinion commentary

Current adherents (?) (none identified)

Regarding Evidence:

- Evidence primarily comes from:

Personal experiences of former members (unpublished masters thesis, exit letters, books)

- Former member self-publications of letters from and notes on sermons attributed to ministers

Journal of former 19th/20th century minister self-published by former members

- Legal cases (libel, destruction of property, conscientious objection, CSA)

- Will of former minister

Observations from 20th century journalists

- Hymn book

There are lots of articles and circular citations but this is essentially the basis from a POV/evidence perspective.

Regarding Controversies:

Regarding POV influences for editors to be aware of, there are historical and present controversies associated with this sect. Generally these relate to:

- Social: Child sexual abuse cases (modern)

- Doctrinal: Protestant evangelical anti-cult movement ministries versus interfaith religious tolerance organization (modern).

- Cultural: Anti-institutionalism/materialism/clericalism versus state churches (historical)

Regarding Wikipedia Observations:

I would note stability of a minimally-trafficked page with minimal editorial oversight is not reflective of a quality page.

Regarding Observations include:

- The description on the page was a significant divergence from representation in scholarly secondary sources

- Diction indicating statements of fact without POV attribution are prevalent while citing sources qualifying as biased/opinionated sources or which exclusively cite biased/opinionated sources (not criticizing these sources or invalidating their personal perspectives and experiences, some of them are great sources, but this is contrary to Wikipedia policy so just requires POV/author attribution)

- POV is strongly disproportionately weighted between POVs

- Self-published and/or biased sources are relied on to make claims about a third party (ie this sect)

- The way his sect is presented in journals and academic discourse is significantly different than the presentation in unpublished, self-published, and books by former members.

- The Wikipedia article was not relying on reliable secondary sources or scholarly publications

- Biased and opinionated sources and self-published sources require attribution to author and POV, to avoid representing as Wikipedia’s statement of fact.

Regarding Editorial Process:

- Due to the extent of bias in POV, the lack of reliable sources, and in general the discrepancy between reliable sources and the description of this sect on the Wikipedia page, I joined to help edit while conducting my lit review

- I have documented the Wikipedia MOS rationale for all edits, which can be discussed individually.

- With respect to other editors content, I refrained from removing substantial content until other editors were present to enable a consensus approach. So it certainly has gotten longer but didn’t want to unilaterally cut others efforts.

- I have taken an expand-filter-synthesize approach, beginning with expanding to add attributions to claims where necessary and represent a balance in POVs, including the evidence level baseline established in the initial article. Of note, this is a working baseline editors should be aiming to improve, however provides structure and context/nuance while editing to avoid editorial mischaricterizations. While reviewing articles, I have then progressively updated citations, adapted assertions as required when more reliable sources are identified, and was starting to filter out sources not meeting criteria for Wikipedia inclusion. Next, I planned to be synthesizing and shortening the article significantly.

- I am/was taking a progressive approach aiming for iterative improvement towards Wikipedia standards.

Regarding Editorial challenges:

- The doctrinal section has been challenging not to misrepresent in the context of controversy. Quotes are temporarily being used as a reference to themselves to balance POV per WS and provide nuance in the lack of doctrinal statements.

- Sources from the evangelical anti-cult movement POV and former member POV are the predominant discourse rather than scholarly articles and secondary sources

- Most sources will have POV, and the editorial focus should be on overall page balance

Regarding Editorial recommendations:

General:

1. Revert the edit by Astynax at 20:33 on 10 September 2025 which removed three months of iterative edits improving evidence basis

2. Aim for progressive brevity. I was next going to shorten the doctrinal section, shortening this to the three scholarly sources discussing it and will make a separate post about that. The history section is quite exhaustive. I didnt want to significantly chop anything I didn’t write but I can do so if others agree, or others can. There are many (most) sources not meeting WP:RS criteria that can be replaced by secondary sources which have much more brief assertions.

3. Balance POVs. Where a significant POV is not represented, this should be acknowledged through citing a scholarly source that acknowledges that. POVs with evidence of bias require clear attribution to the person and the POV (eg current or former members, ministers, anti-cult movement ministry doctrinal critiques, etc).

4. Follow WP:RS. Rely on reliable secondary sources and & scholarly works. Remove third party claims about the sect by self-published sources per Wikipedia standards. These should only be (and can be) used as sources on themselves and not the whole sect.

Specific edits assuming reversion of removal:

- The first line assertion that “affirmative action first-century apostolic doctrine” is based on a concluding summary of the secondary source cited, however out of context this is potentially misleading as I believe this is just a reference to following the Bible, not a unique doctrine specific to the sect, and the manner in which their ministers preach. Also first century doctrines were not a monolith. Recommend just changing this to affirming the Bible or affirming the New Testament as apostolic doctrine.

- The ecclesiology section introduction is from a scholarly source’s characterization, however in isolation the affirmation of another scholars’ assertion that churches are reflective of the Pauline approach and Jesus’ approach was the quintessential sect typology may be misread as an assertion that this specific sect was started by Jesus, which there is zero evidence for and very strong evidence against in gray literature, and the consensus in scholarly articles is the founding in Ireland/Scotland. The author in context is saying this sect exemplifies a type of sect ecclesiology. I would recommend “[all] sects” or “sects [in general]” to clarify this, or perhaps moving that component to a scholarly commentary section.

- some headings reflect perspectives cited within them, which can and should be ammended to neutrality where it could imply a perspective. Specifically, in the social, moral, and cultural issues section, the inclusion of “…radical humility” in the subheader which was initially intended in the literal extremism sense (the concept of avoiding any attention on the assertion/fear of affecting ego per citation) not as a moral judgement or in the populist leadership sense, however on review reads to me as the latter and may best just be called “privacy”, as “secretiveness” etc is loaded.

- The whole restorationism section in the history section with subjective quotes on restorationism perspectives, which is out of place in an objective history section, and ultimately needs to be chopped to a single reliable secondary source on sect history describing restorationism and founding.

- the doctrine section should ultimately be replaced with the three scholarly secondary sources discussing this

To be honest I spent a lot of time over the last three months on iterative improvements with clear MOS rationals, and while the current version is still too long and does retain POV biases, these are now clearly attributed as the biases of the authors cited, and I believe a significant improvement in POV balance from prior. I acknowledge there is a POV balance shift, from initially largely anti-cult movement POV and former member POV, to current inclusion now also including scholarly sources and quotes of former ministers by prior members, the latter of which again can ultimately be removed and replaced with by the two reliable scholarly sources discussing doctrine although I will make a separate post about that when I have time. I do not agree that structural heading changes are inherently problematic nor are unable to be amended. Additionally, this is an iterative process and while I acknowledge the current length, the next step was shortening the page extensively. With respect, mass removing 3 months of valid edits on the basis of interim imperfection and not having had time to review them seems an odd editorial decision. If editors are seeking to retain a particular POV, or if controversies are active among editors, I’m not interested in getting into that and will leave this for other editors with more interest in engaging and monitoring. I have not previously been involved with other editors on this page, so please advise if it is a waste of time and there is ongoing issues with POV editorializing. This is not my intent, neither from an anti-cult nor apologetics perspective. My interest is in progressively improving page validity, NPOV (or in this case POV balance), and editorial rigor. Evidence Review (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry that was long! Didn’t want to multi-comment in future. Evidence Review (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

And yet I must still multi-comment: To clarify “while the current version…”, this was in reference to the most updated version prior to Astynax’s edit to revert to a historical version, not the page it was reverted to following that edit. Evidence Review (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to underline a few points to new editors such as yourself:

• Edits which are either based on and/or include your synthesis violate specific Wikipedia policies on article content. You included quite a lot of such material in your revisions and have stated as much in your replies above;
• Be careful when applying WP:NPOV guidance to not fall into the trap of thinking that you need to, or even should, add or remove sources based upon your personal view of what an article should present. The only requirement here is that article language itself, not the material presented, be neutral (bias is often in the eye of the beholder, and few sources or articles that haven't been accused of it simply because someone finds the info doesn't correspond to their own view). Where there are multiple notable viewpoints, then briefly citing those alternate views may certainly be included;
• There have been previous instances on this talk page in which sources have been discussed at length, including valuable insights offered by uninvolved editors regarding sourcing. I suggest that you go through this page's history to avoid rehashing those points. Although there have been several additional and updated citations since those discussions, the points remain relevant;
• When proposing substantial reworking of an established article, particularly articles with incidents of WP:DE, it is best to first seek consensus;
• If there is any question as to whether working on one or more edits may cause disruption in the main space, our accounts have a Sandbox area in which to hone those potential changes. Simply go to the article's history if you wish to copy your last edit into your sandbox to work area.

I hope that this is of help understanding as to some of the reasons behind the reversion. • Astynax ^talk 20:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)