A detailed biography is in progress.
Kindly provided by Gabriele Naujoks
Apart from the short comment in Neatby , are there accounts as to why Turpin went back to Anglicanism?
Could it have anything to do with all the bickering and squabbling among those known as "exclusive brethren" at the time? According to Neatby, it would appear so, although he regards WTT's departure from "brethren" merely from an anti-Raven standpoint.
If it was simply to escape "Ravenism" (so-called), why not go with those that became known as "Lowe" brethren? Only he knows maybe, and we cannot ask him (!), but a number were leaving the "exclusives" and making their way to the "open" brethren.
It is a while now since i looked into this, but my conclusion reading the last volume of Helps in Things Concerning Himself:, was that WTT had become increasingly concerned about the direction the teaching (led by F.E.R.) was heading. However I fully admit my own bias, and I'm aware there are others more favourable to F.E.R. who believe this had nothing to do with it - in fact if you search for Turpin on this page https://www.mybrethren.org/history/hy09hdc2.htm there is a claim by a family member to that extent. One deeply versed student of Brethren history told me that he believed WTT returned to be a clergyman as he needed the income that position would give him. Again I have seen no proof though.
We may never know the reason why Mr Turpin returned to Anglicanism, but a "more deep-seated diillisionment with the movement as a whole" is not outside the bounds of possibility.
The value of Brethren Archive is that now, long after the dust has settled, is a means to study documents written at the time objectively. However, much regarding the "Raven controversy" is one-sided in that, unless the volumes of his ministry, that of his letters, and the notes of the readings and addresses at Quemerford are available, the only evidence is the writings of his critics.
Interestingly, at one point Mr Raven wrote, "I had learnt by bitter experience the use to which expressions taken out of their connection could be turned." (Letters of F E Raven, New Series, page 39.)
Indeed, there are twenty volumes of Mr Raven's ministry and a volume of his letters available for anyone to read on line or purchase if they so wish, but it cannot be expected that everyone read through and study them all.
In fact, the volumes of his ministry are taken from notes of readings and addresses, rather than having been written by him. The volume containing his letters are his writings of course.
However, many of the references to Mr Raven in historical documents are found in books published and printed some 120 years ago, but might now be so easily found in the New Series, though many are placed in date order if that is known. The index volume might help to find the subject matters in question.
The point is that the actual notes of the relevant readings or addresses having come in for criticism, condemnation even, need to be identified, read in their context, carefully examined, and the arguments against him not used to interpret what Mr Raven meant by what he said.
As stated by another above, however, the real source of the controversy is that of too much faith being placed in a 'group' of people rather than the Word of God.
This is pertains to matters quite recently also, reading things into some Bible verses and explaining away clear statements in others to suit prevailing notions.
I was quoting another with regard to groups of people, not exactly finding fault with the expression, but because by far the most of those in these "groups" - "parties" might be another word - have to rely very much on the judgement of their leaders. There was in this case not only the question of doctrine but also the manner in which it was handled.
Now, I am uncertain as to your meaning in writing, "But I think you ought to be open to accepting that it's possible to read enough of Raven, the history surrounding him and also to examine the consequences that flowed from his teachings, including those he experimented with later in life." I suspect you might mean among those who after 1908 were known as the "London" brethren. If so, I am not so sure that the things which later developed among them can be attributed to Mr Raven.
The "Glanton" brethren (so-called after the date of the division given this name) have been criticised for not judging "the evil teachings of F E Raven" as some call them. Yet, they have always stood well for the eternal sonship of Christ and list among others Mr Raven as one who held it. Similarly, with regard to Christ's manhood.
It is not a question of "Glanton" or any others being "the right group" as though there is such a thing, but of finding those who are walking in holiness and truth. That means of course that I must be doing so likewise.
Everyone in all the fragments of "brethren" thinks they are in the right bit, some even going so far as claiming to be the "primitive company" or that they are the "original brethren" - I thought they lived in the first century ! - but there is something amiss somewhere.
Matthew 18 verse 20 has been the resource, but it might be said that the Lord's teaching in the chapter as a whole has not been heeded.
Tom
I doubt if anyone would expect all twenty volumes plus letters of FER be put on the website.
My point is that those who quote him should quote full sentences, even full paragraphs if necessary maybe, without omissions, or ellipses if there are such. In some instances, questions asked in readings and previous comments of others cited to assess his answers and responses. Immediate context as well as general background are also important to avoid at least misunderstanding and at worst misrepresentation.
The letters of Mr Raven are of interest since among them are his responses to his accusers.
It is of no personal gain to me in terms of point scoring as to whether or not Mr Raven is proved right or wrong on everything. Indeed, there are things on which he is not clear, or at least does not express matters clearly, and which could be interpreted as evasive, even erroneous. However, that his critics were never once in error I do not accept, nor can I have it that he qualifies as an antichrist.
The point is, that at this stage well over a hundred years later, these questions can now be examined objectively from all sides. The idea that an assembly judgement once made, even if proved later to have been entirely wrong, must nevertheless be for evermore upheld everywhere, is taking the matter of assembly administration to an unjusifiable extreme.
Those hungering for more than the 20 volumes of F.E.R.'s published ministry can now use ChatGPT to generate their very own ... quite indistinguishable from the real thing if you ask me!
(first 2 paragraphs)
Rodger, many years ago I had a request from a old Glanton brother (now with the Lord) who wanted a particular volume of FER in the Morrish edition. I asked him, "do you think it is significantly different from the Stow Hill edition?". He said, "I do, yes!"
Btw, the original Stow Hill Bible Depot in Newport (Monmouthshire) was contemporary with Morrish at 20 Paternoster Square. So, even if a book was published by Stow Hill, it may differ from later 'Stow Hill' editons.
The entrance of the "the never-ending FER controversy" came about through having read the short comment in Neatby listed above, viz., "In some cases it was the gradual pressure of Ravenism that forced the malcontents out. Of these lingerers the best known was Mr. W. T. Turpin."
However, I recommend the link Tom mentions above and to read that said of Mr Turpin found just before arriving half way down the page. Indeed, the whole page is of interest, though there are later developments among the "London brethren" with which I cannot go along.
The Notes of Addresses at Quemerford have been very much my sources rather than the Stow Hill new series, though these latter do not seem to have gone about removing or modifying Mr Raven's frequent mention of the "Eternal Son."
