Talk:Christianity/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Minor grammatical error

There is a slight grammatical error in the second paragraph of the Christianity article. In the sentence containing "...holds that Jesus suffered, died from crucifixion, buried, and was resurrected from the dead...", "was" needs to be added before "buried" (Jesus was buried, not Jesus buried. Actually, "buried" needs to be changed to "was placed in a tomb", as the word "buried" may suggest Jesus was buried in any other way (eg. buried in a grave, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jctr7tyhf63jfi (talk • contribs) 23:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the "was". I assume the usage of "buried" was influenced by the wording used in the Creeds (Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed...), but that's not to say it should be that way here. /ninly (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Christianity—basic "definition"

I would like to propose a change to the first paragraph in the article "Christianity." I believe the first sentence should include reference to the Old Testament in addition to the New Testament, or simply to the Bible as a whole. My sources for this idea are the New Testament itself and the Apostles' Creed.

In the New Testament, Jesus often quotes the Old Testament. In addition, many of the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus. This is what He claimed and what Christians believe. Also, John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word...." Many Christians are of the consensus that "the Word" is Jesus. This means that Jesus existed in the beginning. Even if you discard this, "In the beginning" still references the beginning of time, which is written about in the Old Testament, particularly Genesis.

The Apostles' Creed begins, "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth." The story of God creating the earth is in Genesis.

Taking these two sources into account, traditional Christianity is built on the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

I would be willing to try to re-word the first paragraph, but I wanted to put my idea on a talk page first. Sunnygreentrail (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sunny, thank you for seeking to improve the article. Introductions, particularly for those topics with a degree of controversy, are the product of countless hours of work and compromise. Though your position is accurate, I would say that it is already covered in the section on Scripture in the article. More importantly, I would say that the introduction focuses everything on Jesus Christ, the cornerstone of the Christian religion. I would recommend leaving the intro the way it is, but I am sure other editors will have an opinion. Let's hear from them. Thanks again. --^StormRider 08:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Gospel" is technically the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. A "Christianity" separate from the Old Testament is Marcionism. I don't know of too many Marcionites nowadays. However, the first paragraph is essentially correct. Although the New Testament holds that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, his biography is contained in the New Testament and not the Old.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with StormRider. The opening paragraph should provide a simple definition that a reader who is not familiar with Christianity can understand. What we have seems to me to do a pretty good job of that. The first paragraph says that Christianity is defined by faith in Jesus as the Christ and is based on the teachings of the New Testament. There's a lot more to it, of course - but the rest of the article is available to build on this.

The fact that Christianity is rooted in the Hebrew scriptures is important (and perhaps not as widely recognized as it should be), but that's at least implicitly recognized in the second sentence of the first paragraph, which refers to the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, Immanuel, the manifestation of Yahweh. The first sentence of the next paragraph says that Christians "believe that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (the part of scripture common to Christianity and Judaism)", and the first sentence of the third paragraph says that "Christianity began as a Jewish sect and is classified as an Abrahamic religion (see also Judeo-Christian)." I don't see how we could get much more explicit about the Jewish roots of Christianity while keeping the lead to a manageable length.

Having said that, I would not object to adding a sub-section to the top of the History and origins section called something like "Jewish background of Christianity" to cover some of this in more detail. EastTN (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Since we are talking about the first paragraph, why are we mentioning the oldest national Church in the world? Would it not be better to mention the oldest global Church in the world? That would be Catholicism. --Rockstone (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, the oldest national church edit comes and goes. I don't think it merits being in the introduction, but it may be appropriate for the body of the article. Catholicism is certainly the largest Christian Church and that may be something to note in the article. I tend to shy away from such statements only because it opens the door for activist editors to then enter other worthy facts for recognition; who grows the fastest, the slowest, what churches are dying out, who has largest missionary force, what is the largest church in the US, England, France, Myanmar, Siberia, etc. It becomes never ending. I get uncomfortable with edits that I think will cause knee-jerk reactions about emotional topics such as this one. Does this make sense to you?--^StormRider 02:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also shy away from describing Catholicism as the oldest global Church in the world. Without taking sides on the issue, I strongly suspect that the Orthodox Churches would argue that their roots are at least as ancient - and that most church historians would agree. EastTN (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another excellent reason to avoid such statements and an excellent point. I think it would probably be best to delete the statement on first national church; it is something better suited for a sub-article and not here. Is that acceptable? --^StormRider 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This "oldest national church" thing has no place in the lead. The Apostles' Creed certainly does. But I fail to find anything in it that would back Sunnygreentrail's claim that the Apostles' Creed does in any way refer to the importance of the Old Testament. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

EastTN, why not mention that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are widely regarded as the oldest Christian Churches in the world? Or, why don't we just mention that the Catholic Church is the largest Church in the world? I'll add it in the introduction and see how people respond --Rockstone (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend against it. It will cause someone to respond just like the oldest national church being named. Should we name others? If there is an oldest, is there a value to the newest? I don't know the value of such facts in this article. They are better suited for sub-articles. --^StormRider 07:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with StormRider on this one - once we single one or two groups out in this lede as particularly notable, other people will want to get equal billing for their groups. As for Catholicism being the largest, we have an entire article giving a List of Christian denominations by number of members. (I do think it makes sense to have a link to that article from this one - perhaps in the Christianity Footer.) As for "oldest," I don't know. There are Baptist groups that argue that their origins go back to the first century (Baptist successionism). Restoration Movement churches such as the Churches of Christ see themselves as trying to restore a first century Christianity. Defining "oldest" could lead to a discussion of all sorts of things. EastTN (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the supposed "oldest national church" has no place in the intro or anywhere.

To note the RCC as the largest however is an undisputable fact, as is the moniker oldest for the combined RCC-Eastern Orthodox entity. That some Baptists invent storties about their origins, even under the NPOV rule, cannot be a reason to keep out accurate information or to insist on some "equal billing" for made-up stuff. (Consider the implications for this article.)

However, whether we need either the largest or the oldest church in the intro is an entirely different matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally, it should be clear that this article is first and foremost about Christianity as it exists NOW. Speculations about its origins and history are relevant at best only when it comes to Christianity's history, not not affect the core definition of the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its reasonable enough to have the two largest and oldest in the intro, since they make up the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians in the world. This is useful information for the reader. On the oldest debate, no serious academic historian would consider the latter sects you mention as being the oldest. The Baptists began in the 16th century and the ahem, "restorationists" began in the 19th century. The article will always be an anarchistic mess if we consider as absolutely equal, fringeo opinions held to by an minute percentage of people who call themselves Christian. WP:UNDUE seems to be a good policy on this one. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My point was that putting by raising these issues in the lead we run the risk of inviting unnecessary controversy. Whether or not we agree with the conservative Baptists and other groups that claim a lineage going back to the first century, there are a lot of them. There are even more people - including most church historians - who would argue that the church of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century differed significantly from today's Catholic and Orthodox churches in both organization and practice. All of this should be covered in appropriate places - that's why I think a link to the List of Christian denominations by number of members would make sense somewhere in the article. While "largest" may not quite fall to the level of trivia, it doesn't seem to add much to the lead for this article (it would make sense, perhaps, in the lead for Christian denomination, List of Christian denominations and certainly in the lead for List of Christian denominations by number of members). As for the "oldest," a straight-up description of church history addresses that well without the necessity for Wikipedia to anoint one or two groups with the title "oldest." EastTN (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it could be potentially controversial, ie, some people would complain, but if a better and more informative article is got out of it in the process then its worth it. Especially considering the poor state of the article. We shouldn't shy away from tackling something just because its an emotive subject (lets face it, anything on religion usually is). Baptists are a very miniscule group in the overall world of Christianity, most Christians would also strongly question their orthodoxy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not controversial, but it borders on complete faith and it ignores a host of other concepts of faith. Baptists are not miniscule, but make up on the largest groups in the US. I wonder if you thought it would be important, just to add information, to include that the Catholic Church has also been perceived as the Great Whore of all the Earth for hundreds of years? Or that many people think it is a cult and has long since left the true Christian faith. You absolutely cannot begin denigrating the faith and doctrines of others without immediately being countered with the same type of criticism. Also, facts are good, but there is not need to report all facts in every article. Your proposal, IMHO, does not enhance this article and it does not belong in the lead. --^StormRider 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm, please don't get inflammatory. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn't clear - I didn't mean to say that the assertion was particularly controversial, but that it might "invite controversy" in the sense of "trigger some unnecessary drama." Including the statement in the lede of this article doesn't seem likely, to me, to strengthen this particular article - the lede has enough to cover without getting into demographics or history of particular denominations. EastTN (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote to remove, from the context of the lead, the references to the "two oldest Churches". Why two? Why not three, four? (Or one?) And the existing text "It is widely agreed upon by Historians that the Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox Church are the two oldest Churches in the world" is imprecise. How do the churches of the Epistles (Ephesians, Galatians, etc.) fit into such a scheme? At the very least the phrasing should include the concept of early denominational-like groupings still extant today. And that is getting rather too complicated for the lead, isn't it? Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a concise and polished summary of the topic, not a random collection of "oldest - tallest - longest - largest" trivia. --dab (𒁳) 07:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence in question. Before adding it back, consensus will need to be achieved. An understanding of the purpose of the lead will be necessary. More importantly, references need to meet the standards of reliable sources; neither of ones given would meet that standard. These types of conversations are difficult because the foundation or premise of the statement is often based upon faith. Not saying becomes an affront to an individual's personal faith and we are off to the races in a large edit war.

In order to keep the conversation as neutral as possible (read without emotion and not an edit war), please consider your position carefully. IF it is one based solely on faith, this article is not the place for it. Keep your statements strictly supported by reliable references i.e. academic, peer reviewed sources are best. Consider also that this is a major article with hundreds, if not thousands, of sub-articles, which are ideal places for these tid-bits of information regarding the beliefs of specific groups. Lastly, consider that every Christian church has beliefs and doctrines that need to be respected and Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons or entities (no one gets to toot their own horn without everyone else getting to toot theirs). --^StormRider 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree; leave it out, on roughly the same basis that dab cites above ("random" or not). The lead is not the place for superlatives. /ninly (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well- the reason the Catholic Church should be mentioned is because of it's importance in Shaping Christianity, and because it was the only Christian Church until the 11th Century AD. --Rockstone (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not true that it was the only church until the 11th century. It was the only in the west, but in the east we had the separate Nestorian and Monophysite denominations. I am not delving into the unsolvable issue of how to call the entity that split into RCC and EOC. And of course, nothing of great importance changed in the 11th century. 1054 is vastly overrated. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rockstone, we are only talking about the introduction. The body of the article has an entire section focused upon the Catholic Church. In many respects it is appropriate to say that the Catholic Church is the mother church for almost all other churches and/or denominations. However, that is something that a reliable reference is needed to state and it is more appropriate elsewhere. --^StormRider 23:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts the incredible importance of the Catholic church. I do think we can over-emphasize it, though. The Eastern Orthodox would definitely not agree that the Catholic church "was the only Christian Church until the 11th Century AD" or that they somehow originated from the Catholic church. Church history is too complex to compress into a sentence or two in this lede, and there are many other historically important communions. EastTN (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not mention both then? --Rockstone (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My short answer? Because it's simply not that important relative to the rest of the material in the article. If we're really trying to summarize the content of the article in the lead section, we should talk about the Christian scriptures, Christian worship, provide a thumbnail sketch of church history, and then mention the primary branches of Christianity. I'm not sure we can do all that in a reasonably-sized introduction, but that's what a summary would look like. To pull out one (or two) churches for special mention without setting a broader context isn't appropriate - it's a bit like starting out the article on Islam with a lede that talks about the Sunni but doesn't mention the Shia. If we can agree on a taxonomy of the primary branches of Christianity (which isn't as easy as it sounds - look at some of the discussions above), then we're providing the reader with a useful overview of the subject. If, on the other hand, we just grab a couple of churches then we are (again, in my opinion) going down the road of what someone described earlier as "oldest - tallest - longest - largest" trivia. EastTN (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition of Christianity that you are using is disconnected with several portions of the page. The definition being used doesn't distinguish between orthodox and heterodox christianity. This leads to a confused article on other protestant denominations. Historically, Christianity includes both orthodox and heterodox christianity. Orthodox Christianity has its basis in Jesus as the messiah of the old testament prophecies. However, the ebionites believed in Jesus as the messiah but had a very different view of the messiah, divinity, and deity of Jesus. The ebionites were widespread by the 4th century reaching from spain to bulgaria. The cathars are considered to be ebionite in origin and were a viable "christian" group until the 7th crusade was directed against them. For those who are wondering what bearing this could have on Christianity only need to look at the Da Vinci Code books which present a cathar world view of christianity. Heterodox Christianity has its basis in Jesus as savior. Marcion and much of the Nag Hammadi Library adhere to this form of Christianity which not only ignores the old testament prophecies of the messiah but considers the old testament deity as not the diety of their faith. Jesus is presented as a person whose sayings re-awaken the divinity of every human and thus save them from ignorance and allows them to rejoin the Godhead. Once again the cathars held to some of these concepts and blended the ebionite view of Jesus with the gnostic view of the divinity of every human. Now what could this have to do with the page? Well, for one thing the church of latter day saints is not another protestant denomination - it is simply a new version of catharism. Since the page did not provide a definition that adequately separated orthodox christianity from other forms you had no way to correctly classify the church of latter day saints. Deadtotruth (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be totally wrong to make such distinctions. "Heterodox" doesn't mean fringe, it means non-orthodox, i.e. heretical, which is necessary a matter of perspective. From a Catholic perspective for instance, Protestantism in all its shades would be correctly described as heterodox.

Secondly, this article is about Christianity today, not about long gone sects.

What you write about Ebionites is also badly mistaken: the term itself is problematic but the Ebionites were never widespread, certainly not in the 4th century and never in Spain or Bulgaria. Their basis was Palestine and Syria. There is absolutely no similarity between the Jewish-Christian Ebionites and the Gnostic Cathars. (And they were not the aim of the Seventh Crusade (1248-54) but of the Albigensian Crusade (1209-29). Fiction like Da Vinci Code should not even be mentioned here. It also, with its pro-feminine bent does in any way reflect the austere Cathars, who rejected matter, birth and hence women too.

"Heterodox Christianity has its basis in Jesus as savior." is a meaningless sentence as this is true of orthodox Christianity too (but actually not of Gnostics like the Cathars, for whom Jesus was a mere teacher.) Marcion and the Nag Hammadis library have little in common. But since no form of Christianity today openly rejects the Old Testament, such groups are a subject for the history of Christianity, not for the description of the religion itself.

No, the Mormon Church is not a protestant denomination, but neither is it - with its strong emphasis on childbearing (hope I got that right, Storm) - in any way even close to the Cathars. The classification of LDS groups as Christian is however a matter of dispute. If they fit anywhere, it is among Restorationism. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dead, thank you for your comments. You make several good points and some leaps of logic that, IMHO, would be inaccurate. For example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (the Church of Latter day Saints is a misnomer and is offensive to LDS because it excludes Jesus Christ), not only depends upon the Old Testament for its beliefs, but for Messianic prophesy. If I were to summarize some of the most significant and cherished LDS beliefs it would be Jesus, born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, performed miracles, was crucified for the sins of mankind, rose the third day, appeared to his disciples on several occaisions, returned to the Father, and will return again one day; these are shared with all of orthodoxy. I think you will find this to be the case with many other non-Trinitarian groups.

Are there possible similarities with Catharism as you propose? Possibly, but that is a topic for their article or possibly Mormonism and Christianity. Your mention of becoming gods, or Theosis, is an interesting topic, but it is one that is found in orthodoxy as well as heterodoxy. Saint Athanasius wrote, "God became man so that man might become god." summarizes this concept perfectly. A Latter-day Saint would say the exact same statement.

It may be worthwhile to use reliable references to identify orthodox beliefs and unorthodox beliefs in the article. The article already clearly illuminates orthodox beliefs. Do you think readers are confused by the article? Do you think the article would be improved by specifically identifying them as orthodox? I am not sure I am against this, but great care would be needed to maintain neutrality. Wikipedia cannot be put in the position of stating what is and is not orthodoxy, however reliable sources can be used to clarify or make this point. --^StormRider 03:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Storm,

Yes, I think it would be helpful to identify the various beliefs. For instance, arians believed themselves to be non-heretical but they obviously had a different viewpoint of the godhead than trinitarians. It would be somewhat incorrect to say that Arians weren't Christians. Similar problems exist for gnostics as we already discussed. I think that readers would find the present article to not be as informative as it should be concerning the different aspects of belief. Also, certain parts of the Epistles address non-apostolic beliefs and become clarified when the various non-apostolic beliefs are described. Orthodoxy in the New Testament is sometimes described in antithesis of non-apostolic beliefs. A good example is 1Corinthians 15 where apostolic belief is described as a belief in the resurrection versus the non-apostolic lack of belief in the resurrection. In 1Corinthians 15 Paul appears to indicate that someone affiliated with Christianity was advancing a resurrectionless belief system. Cathars worshipped in Christian churches and considered themselves non-heretical.Deadtotruth (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Arians - true or false - do not exist anymore, hence their place is in the history section, not in any definition. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Deadtotruth, your point is touching on my own point: that no group considers itself to be heretical. Although Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians consider the Church of the Latter Day Saints to be heretical by their definition of Christianity, Mormons have their own definition of Christianity, against which they are orthodox. Jehovah's Witnesses also have their own definition of Christianity, against which they themselves are orthodox (and everyone else heretical). Storm's POV is that of Mormonism: find a way to redefine Christianity in a way that Mormons are "Christian."

Although I agree with you that Arians can be called "Arian Christians" (i.e. with a modifier), I think it is inappropriate to simply call them Christians (without a modifier) because the normal understanding of the word "Christian" in the English language is Trinitarian. That does not make Trinitarianism right, but merely normative. A failure to use a modifier for Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Arians, would give readers the impression that these groups are Trinitarians.

I've had some objections here to my statement that "Mormons aren't Christians." That doesn't mean they are "false" -- it simply means that "Mormons aren't (without modifier attached) Christians". In this case Mormons are "Heretical Christians." Again, that doesn't make them false. Christianity could be considered "Heretical Judaism" -- not "false", but simply "not normative."SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about "the normal understanding of the word". 95% of all Christians would have to guess their own branch's official definition of the trinity if given (say) the Arian and the Nicene versions (and probably would not notice if offered two "heretic" versions). This was a historically significant step back in the Byzantine days, but try to explain the difference between "of one substance" and "of the same substance" to anybody today, and you will draw blank stares. The normal understanding is a belief in Jesus as the son of god, born of the virgin Mary, who taught moral live, died for humanities sins, but was resurrected on the third day. Anything beyond that is more than most Christians I know use as their working definition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

General unfamiliarity is not a reason for this resource to get sloppy, but rather for us to be careful to go by the definitions accepted by Christian institutions. Again, for all I'm concerned Arianism could be the only "true" form of "Christianity" but would still be "heretical" by normative definitions. "Heretical" does not mean "wrong" but rather "non-normative." We cannot reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator when Christianity has a very significant (and often bloody) history of defining its terms.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are applying circular logic here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, I'm applying the same principle that is applied on the article Mormon:

(Begin quote) "Mormon is a term used to describe the adherents, practitioners, followers or constituents of certain denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. The term most often refers to a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which is commonly called the Mormon Church. The LDS Church claims that "Mormon" should properly be applied only to its members, to avoid possible confusion with Mormon fundamentalist groups which practice plural marriage. However, the term is nevertheless used to refer to many other sects that recognize Brigham Young as a prophet, including Mormon fundamentalists. The term is not usually applied to other sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, such as the Community of Christ, who did not associate with Brigham Young after the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the movement." (End quote; emphasis added)

There is a Mormon orthodoxy and heretical Mormons -- heretical as defined by the mainstream group known by the term. One could be an orthodox Mormon and a heretical Christian at the same time, because the bulk of people known as "Mormon" have doctrines incompatible with the bulk of people known as "Christian". And all the while it could theoretically be the Buddhists who have "absolute truth." "Orthodox" and "Heterodox" are terms which are relative to their context, and are not absolute. If I, as a Jew, were to claim to be a Christian or a Mormon, each group could rightly call me a "heretic" respective to their own belief system. An orthodox Christian would be a heretical Mormon or Jew by the same logic. This isn't circular because I'm not saying each group defines ultimate truth, but rather relative boundaries to their own identity. Regardless of what "Christianity" or "Judaism" or "Mormonism" SHOULD be, they ARE in fact what they claim to be on a doctrinal level. Presumably all religions would be the same if we had perfect knowledge. But we aren't talking about perfect knowledge. We are simply talking about groups creating their own identity. It is not absolute truth that Wikipedia establishes. We merely report what these groups are in their present state.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The analogy of on Mormons falls to pieces when you try to compare it to Christains...there is not a Church that is officially called the Christian church. Within Christianity you have all types of monikers from Orthodox, Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans to...take your pick of over 36,000 Christian denominations. Mormons can be heretical when compared to Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, but extreme care would need to be used when discussing Christianity as a whole or it becomes POV i.e. you begin to take sides by identifying who or what is the "norm". You continue to limit your definition of Christianity based upon doctrine of a church. It almost makes me laugh when belief in Jesus as the Messiah is ridiculed as "the lowest common denominator". Any references for your position yet or is it still opinion sharing time? --^StormRider 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about heretical beliefs and it does not solely focus on orthodoxy. The topic is Christianity and describing its beginnings and its evolution. It is not about identifying truth within Christianity because that is beyond the scope of any Wikipedia article. --^StormRider 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about ultimate truth; we are talking about absolute boundaries set by the churches themselves. They do not regard non-Trinitarians as being in the same religion. Mormonism is not a denominational difference, but a fundamental difference on the religion boundary. The Creeds are recognized both historically (as in Schaff's Creeds of Christendom), and theologically (as per any standard reference theology, such as Erickson or Berkhoff) as self defined boundaries of who is and who is not a member of the same religion. While the Baptist Faith and Message relates a boundary of Southern Baptist Belief, the Nicene Creed relates a boundary of Christian belief. Does that make it true? No.

For the nth time: the self definition of the Nicene Creed does NOT make it true. It simply states what the normative boundaries of Christianity have been recognized to be.

Mormons are quite right to make their own definitions. A bishop or elder who taught Trinitarianism would rightly be regarded as a heretic by Mormons.

Once again, so you can hear me, Wikipedia is NOT about identifying absolute truth; it is merely about reporting the opinions of notable groups in their normative meanings and terms. No Trinitarian church could be called "Mormon" without some kind of caveat. No non-Trinitarian church could be called "Christian" without some kind of caveat. That has NOTHING to do with truth. It merely keeps our terms in line with normal usage.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi to those that have the power to embed video, what about adding this simple animation that clearly explains Christianity to the main "Christianity" page? "A handy, two-minute animated video giving a clear, uncluttered explanation of the Christian faith: What is Christianity? It's a simple, well done visual illustration that covers the basic beliefs of the Christian faith without getting bogged down in complex theology." -review from About.com guide Mary Fairchild. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 100huntley (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice video, but it does not reflect the large diversity of early Christianity. And it does not mention the Trinity - in fact, I think the holy spirit was short-changed. It would cover Mormons, Arians, and Protestants, but not Marcionites and (most) Gnostics ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive any unintended breaches of protocol. Concerning first paragraph, the phrase 'the revelations in the new testament' is rather an unusual structure to describe a collection of mutually integrated, independently written, historically and archaeologically verified original works in vernacular language. The events described in the New Testament are universally accepted to have actually happened (ie. census of Augustus Ceasar, birth of Jesus Christ, Death of, etc etc. Furthermore The writers recorded events they actually saw, or they mentioned otherwise (Luke's gospel is based on interviews as he states at the start) which puts each New Testament book on a literary par with the writings of Julius Caesar and above those of Plutarch.

Surely it is less biased to describe the New Testament as a 'collection of Historically verified Religious writings'? Otherwise we should have to describe Plutarch's lives as 'Revelations of Plutarch' and Pliny's works as 'Revelations of Pliny'

Christianity is clearly based on the historical existence of all the New testament figures, and any revelation included is within the context of that narrative. Winston Churchill's WWII series contains many metaphysical references (eg his sense of being prepared for a purpose) and yet we wouldn't dream of ascribing to it the noun 'revelation', likewise Martin Luther King's famous speech "I have a dream" which would be almost purely metaphysical in nature, but is nonetheless rightly classified as an historical document of the first order(because of King's real existence).

Alternately, to preserve the much-agonised paragraphic structure, why not reduce it to merely 'the new testament', dropping the orphaned 'revelations' which serves only a connotative function?

7kingis 7kingis (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's problematic to refer to the New Testament as "a collection of Historically verified Religious writings" for a variety of reasons. For now I'll only mention one: There are many books of the New Testament that aren't historically verified (I have a lot of the epistles in mind) and at least one that doesn't seem amenable to historical verification (the Revelation of John). That said, I appreciate that you've suggested an alternative. I won't object to dropping the phrase the revelations in. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You only need to take the epistles into hand to see that they do exist, hence they are historically verified. But there's no need to complicate matters by such phrases. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are only considered "revelations" by Christians (and to some extent by Muslims, etc.), and we shouldn't be taking that POV. kwami (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the need seen by you to take the "revelations" out, I also don't see any need fo it to be there. (As a matter of fact, it was added later to the original definition.) BTW, no Muslim of any time we know abouit does or did consider the New Testament revelation. At best, they consider OT and NT the warped remains of what once was revelation. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunny,

as I was around when this basic definition was created, I may chime in: the definition tries to avoid several alternative but problematic definitions:

• "Christianity is centred around the Bible" - that would be, at best, a very Protestant POV.
• "Christianity is centred around (life and teachings of) Jesus Christ" - some may contest that Jesus taught something else or, for those on the fringe, didn't exist.

The centre of Christianity is life and teachings of Jesus Christ, assuming that the New Testament gives us the accurate picture. This excludes the possibility to object by those that want to think up a different Jesus or those on the fringe that claim his non-existence. Believe me, these people were here and tried to insert things like "(supposing he existed)" etc.

God's Priorities

In the book Angels on assignment, by Charles & Frances Hunter, as Told by Roland Buck, ISBN 0-917726-33-2, http://www.angelsonassignment.org/priorities.html (Ch. 6, pages 73-89), It is explained how Pastor Roland Buck had an angelic visitation from the angel Gabriel.

One very important message given was about the priorities of God. The message of the angel corresponds with Scripture, but shows how the priorities of God interlinks with the seven feasts which foreshadowed this.

They are: First Priority: The Blood of Jesus Second Priority: Fellowship and Communion with God Third Priority: Jesus Is Alive Fourth Priority: The Promise of the Holy Spirit Fifth Priority: Go Tell The World Sixth Priority: Atonement of Jesus is Everlasting Seventh Priority: The Return of Jesus

I personally believe that deception and cult movements enter in when the priorities of God does not take centre stage anymore.

Can we please include this under the initial paragraph on beliefs.

The document is semi-edited. Will somebody else include this. It is very important, it is to God and it should be to every true Christian also. You can include more from the document as well. Thanks (Torchrunner (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

this is the article on Christianity, a religion with a 2000 years' history, taking shape over centuries during the Roman Empire and the medieval period, and you want us to focus on "Pastor Roland Buck had an angelic visitation from the angel Gabriel"? This is plainly WP:UNDUE. If Roland Buck passes WP:BIO, we can carry this in Buck's own article. If he does not, chances are the Christianity article doesn't need to be aware of Buck either. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You also assume its importance through fallacy, because what one pastor believes doesn't concern the majority of Christians (I don't think Catholics will listen or agnostic Christians).72.220.125.54 (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Question About the Reliability/Impartiality of the Sources Used for "Restorationism"

We have identified "Restorationism" as one of the primary branches of Christianity.

"Christianity may be broadly represented as being divided into five main groupings: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Restorationism."

The two sources used for this statement are:

1) "The LDS Restorationist movement, including Mormon denominations". Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2007-12-31., which talks about the "LDS Restorationist movement" - not the broader grouping this article currently identifies. The page cited is also from a website with a particular point of view ("ReligiousTolerance.org - Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance"), and starts with the heading "The LDS Restorationist movement, including Mormon denominations: Are they Christians?"

2) "Divisions of Christianity". North Virginia College. Retrieved 2007-12-31., which never mentions restoration or restorationism - it lists "The Eastern Orthodox churches," "The Catholic Church," "The Protestant churches," "American born churches," and "Ecumenism & inter(non)-denominationalism." It appears to be a set course notes for a collage class on Western Religions. Interestingly, the author in discussing the "American born churches" says "The founders of most of these newer churches had invariably grown up within one or another Protestant church, so we could argue that the churches they founded were breakaway churches from the mainstream Protestant groups."

When we go to define restorationism, we use:

3) "What is Restorationism?". Got Questions Ministries. Retrieved 2007-12-31. This is a page on the website of "Got Questions Ministries" which the webisite's home page says "seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by providing biblical, applicable, and timely answers to spiritually-related questions through an internet presence." It's also a group that strongly disagrees with the churches that it describes a "restorationist" - the page we're citing is intended as a refutation of "restorationism" from the point of view Got Questions Ministries.

4) "The Restorationist Movements". Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2007-12-31. This is another page from the ReligiousTolerance.Org website. The attribution at the bottom of the page, though, is Wikipedia:

"The following information source was used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.

1. "Restorationism," Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, at: http://www.reference.com/ (accessed: November 08, 2006)."

I don't think it's valid to base a Wikipedia article on a source that simply refers back to an older version of another Wikipedia article.

I've had some real concerns about the way this article has defined "Restorationism" as a "branch" of Christianity (see the discussion of denominations above. While restoration or Christian primitivism is a recurring theme in church history, I do not believe it's valid to lump all of the groups coming out of the U.S. Second Great Awakening together as a coherent "movement" or "branch" of Christianity. They wouldn't recognize each other as such, and neither would most church historians.

I've spent a little bit of time on the Restorationism article trying to get some decent sources behind a solid definition of "restorationism," and largely ignoring the issue in this article for now. As we edit the "main groupings" section of this article, I'd like to suggest that we not get too bought into the current definition of "restorationism" as a "branch" of Christianity. The sources that are being used now are extremely weak, and based on the church histories I have, it's a best an extremely idiosyncratic taxonomy for Christian denominations. EastTN (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered what might be better terminology? --^StormRider 17:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is clear rubbish. Almost any overview of Christianity you read will divide into three groups: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. There are a number of groupings that claim to be outside the three, but nothing that stands up to scrutiny. Reference:any good book on Christianity that isn't specifically pushing the viewpoint of one of the minority groups. e.g. [1] [2] DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As for 'Restorationism' getting a section on its own, most histories of Christianity cover Restorationism in a page or two. No history (except those written from a Restorationist viewpoint) will treat them any different. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given some thought to other approaches. Everyone seems to start with the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant groupings. Beyond that, the problem seems to be two-fold. First, there are a number of churches that don't fit well into any of those three major branches. The Later Day Saints, for instance, Messianic Jews and many of the groups that self-identify as non-denominational. But second, if you go a level deeper, you can quickly end up with too many categories to be a useful.

I'm not in a position to do much this afternoon, but I'll do some looking over the next couple of days and see what I see in different sources I own. Ideally, I'd like to see a list of major groups that isn't too long (whatever that means), that lumps churches together in a way that helps readers understand how they relate to one another (one of my biggest issues with the current "Restorationist" category), and that easily accommodates new Christian groups as well as it does the older, "mainline" groups. EastTN (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can save you the trouble. Every reputable overview divides Christendom into three: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. Other groups are too small to be significant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a fourth branch of Christianity; a catch-all that does not easily fit in the other three? Frankly, I don't really care what it is called. IF we must use the branch analogy, then calling it a branch is the best we have. If we are simply talking about different groups within Christianity, then it is easily identified as a group; do away with the term branch.

Rubbish? Okay, but then you have to also admit that all those historians you are talking about that limit it to three branches are just as highly biased in their writing as any other. A secular historian is going to include all of the churches within Christianity. The only ones that don't are writing from a specific POV. Pot meet kettle; it is all rubbish.

I am flexible on terms to a degree, but what is absolute fact is you have a significant minority that needs to be dealt with. If you want to replace the term Restorationism, I am curious about hearing what would be better. Is it an ideal label? No, only in that the entities within have a diverse set of doctrinal beliefs...which seems to be the case with every other category given there are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world. However, that which is germane is they all claim the term Restorationism (except maybe one of them) and that belief is central to their theology. --^StormRider 19:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should I admit that? This includes some of the most respected church historians of this or any other period. If you think that all reputable church historians are biased against your sect, then you are veering too close to WP:TRUTH. There are many, many, many reliable sources using the three divisions.

However do take note of what I'm saying: I'm not saying the three divisions are a perfect system, or that there are no groups which fit into it with difficulty; but they are by far the most commonly applied (which is what we say in the article). A balance has to be struck between giving undue weight to small groups and a good overview of the whole of Christendom. It is agreed virtually without exception, not by us but by experts in the field, that the three divisions is the best way to do it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ, I am fine with branch theory, but it is indisputable that there are these other groups. How best do we treat them?

Please be careful with accusations and please talk to pot. Here is a hint, both pot and kettle are as black as darkest night and no one gets to point fingers.

Curious, do you have any secular historians that have written within the last 20 years that take this postion? Do current historians simply exclude any discussion of these others groups? How do they treat them? Please, note that I am not disputing the branch theory, but I think you will find that it is incomplete.

For those who are not secular, do they just simply list them as cults? If we use the term cults, should we just term all of them under a section Cults? --^StormRider 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be very cautious about characterizing all of the "non-big-three" groups as "Cults" - that could end up looking like we have a particular POV. And right now we have the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) categorized under "Restorationism." One may or may not agree with them, but I'm not aware of any definition under which that denomination could reasonably be considered a "cult." EastTN (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cult is a silly word and has lost all value in academic conversation; frankly it is not used unless the objective is to demean a group. Of course, the problem would immediately develop as to who calls who a cult and why. Baptists for a very long time now have labeled Catholicism a cult. Mormons are held as a cult by many groups. New religious movement is being used more in academic circles, but there is a time period used as a parameter. The LDS Church falls outside of that time period. Catholicism is no more a cult then all of religion is a cult. Though my question was made with a degree of tongue in cheek, I think it is remains a fair question. When we honestly answer it we readily demonstrate our personal POV and then we can abandon it for a more neutral approach to the topic. ^StormRider 18:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Every reputable overview includes the major categories of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. Some include others as well - for example, I've seen the scheme:

Catholic

Orthodox

Protestant

Evangelical churches

Mainline churches

Hist. black churches

Mormon

Jehovah's Witnesses

Other Christian

. . . and the scheme:

Roman Catholic

Other Catholic

Orthodox

Protestant

Anglican

Other

Leaving the branch analogy behind, Melton has done some work on denominational families. Here is a summary of his thoughts. It certainly adds more categories. What is evident is that there are numerous ways to approach this issue and we can use one of them or a blending of some of them. I can easily see taking Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and then breaking the rest into some of Melton's groupings. Thoughts? --^StormRider 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to that. Some of his groupings are ones that I've seen in other sources. It might be useful to look at some of the guides to Christian denominations that have been written for the lay reader - they might tend to group denominations in a way that would be useful to non-Christians and people with only a casual familiarity with different forms of Christianity. EastTN (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know of no reputable historian, secular or otherwise, except those closely affiliated with Restorationism, that assigns Restorationism an equal place with Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. To my knowledge every single one treats Restorationism as a minor offshoot. Do you have any references to disagree with this view?

As I said above, yes there are other groups with claims to be outside the groupings, but no, reputable church historians do not consider them significant enough to invent a whole new classification. (You're not serious putting the reputation of religioustolerance.org up against Owen Chadwick are you?) DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I also note that if you are wanting to follow Melton (and you shouldn't) then you also have to put Pentecostalism, Anglicanism and a number of other groups up there too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ, at this point, I am not sure that I am disagreeing with anything you are saying. I am not a proponent of anything, yet. Nor have I recommended using a specific manner of classifying different groups or using specific sources. In fact, quite the opposite, I have suggested we look at many and we may choose to use a blending of them. Please do not introduce controversy where there is none.

The question is how do we discuss these other groups? What is your recommendation and let's start with that. --^StormRider 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by the definition of "Restorationism" on the page ie. "Restorationism refers to a group of unaffiliated 19th century movements from within Christianity based upon the premise that the true faith and practice of the church had been lost due to apostasy and that the church needed to be restored to its New Testament model". Surely if you substitute "16th century" for "19th", this is a self-definition of protestantism? If there is a 4th category of Christians, it needs to be defined better than this? Xandar 08:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we discuss groups like Restorationism as and when they come up. The authors mentioned above don't discuss them very frequently in their works - much less frequently than the average Wikipedia article. Most books on Christianity don't talk about them to any extent, any more than they talk about Christadelphians, Old Order Mennonites, Hutterites or any other minority groups. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK StormRider, you say you "don't disagree with me" and yet when I go to the article I find you've reverted it back to your minority view! Your comment talk about consensus to change, yet I don't see any consensus to change the established three-way division to a minority view five-way division. So you establish consensus and then we can go with your personal approach. I'm angry at you, StormRider. You act in bad faith. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not be angry at me; it is not healthy and not worth your energy. I reverted to what I thought was the stable position of the article. My only objective in doing so is that given we are in the midst of discussion, it is unwise to edit the article until consensus is reached. Your edit was only premature and may very well be the end point, but let the group find consensus first and then act. Does that make sense? ^StormRider 18:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments.

1) I don't think anyone is arguing that "Restorationism" or any other group is in any sense "equal" to Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. In my judgment, though, there are other groups that are important due to number of adherents, public visibility or for historical reasons that we need to include.

2) I also disagree with the statement "Restorationism refers to a group of unaffiliated 19th century movements from within Christianity based upon the premise that the true faith and practice of the church had been lost due to apostasy and that the church needed to be restored to its New Testament model" That's one reason I'm convinced we need to rework the current organization of the article. Historians studying the Restoration Movement don't use that terminology.

3) I have no conceptual problem with including "Pentecostalism, Anglicanism and a number of other groups."

4) The existing text has been in place for a long time, and represents a de-facto consensus. It's been discussed before - extensively - and no consensus developed for changing it. Certainly no consensus developed for limiting the discussion to Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

To try and move the discussion forward, I'd like to make an initial suggestion. It's based on a couple of presuppositions. First, that Protestantism is much more diverse than either Catholicism or Orthodoxy and has a number of sub-branches or subgroups that are clearly distinct and important to understanding the history and diversity of Christianity. Second, that there are other groups that are notable for the purposes of this article. So, I would suggest:

• Catholicism
• Orthodox Church
• Protestant

• Families of Protestant Denominations
• e.g. Anglican
• e.g. Lutheran
• e.g. Methodist / Lutheran
• e.g. Presbyterian

. . . etc.

• Other Christian Groups

• Groups/Families that don't fit in above
• e.g. Latter-Day Saints
• e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses
• e.g. Non-denominational Christianity

. . . etc.

This approach would not undermine the admittedly important historical categories of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, but it would allow for additional flexibility. It would also be more consistent with the structure of other Wikipedia articles such as List of Christian denominations, List of Christian denominations by number of members and Christian denomination. EastTN (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone is arguing that "Restorationism" or any other group is in any sense "equal" to Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.". Clearly you are not reading the article, because there is a whole section "Restorationism" of similar length, at the same level of heading, as the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant sections. That is obviously an implicit claim of equality of significance. You just reverted to the version containing it. I might also point out that the section was added only a couple of days ago, without discussion, so you effictively reverted a long-established consensus version with huge support in the literature to a minority version added without consensus. I would be obliged if you wounld re-revert yourself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this talk page, having just glanced at the debate it seems to me that "Restorationism" is being totally oversold and over-hyped here. I seems like the use of Wikipedia as a PR platform really. Wikipedia is free - so why not use it? right? History2007 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I also acknowledge that Melton is generally an excellent source, but I have to also acknowledge that he more or less limits his field to American religions, not worldwide religion. Taking into account that many or most of the major restorationist groups currently active originated or developed in the United States, he would reasonably devote a great deal of attention to them. That, however, does not mean that the significance of such movements is as broad worldwide as it would seem to be in the US. Also, there is the very real question regarding whether restorationism, with its comparatively short history, really deserves to be given so much space as it does in this, the main article. It is particularly questionable considering the content that there is in the article, if I may say so, is so underwhelming. The second paragraph, which desribe what the basic "nub" of restorationism is, I think may well deserve to be in the article. The third paragraph, which is basically a laundry list of denominations, probably gives far too much importance to their names in this, the most central article on the subject. And, if we are going to include it in this main article, I would tend to think that there should be a section on the Assyrian Church of the East as well, maybe only a paragraph or so, maybe like Restorationism, given both its significance historically in Christianity and its being, basically, the first real schism. But, returning to the main point, I can't see how the third paragraph of the restorationism section, and maybe much/most of the first paragraph, really merits inclusion here. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, just to be clear, I am for eliminating the heading "Restorationism" - it doesn't make sense as a coherent category, and it doesn't encompass all of the non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, non-Protestant groups. I'm also for finding an appropriate category - perhaps "other" - to acknowledge that there are notable groups that do not comfortably fit into one of the big three. I do not believe that the combination of those suggestions would result in giving undue prominence to a "Restorationist" branch (which I don't believes exists in the form described by the current text).

I also believe that an examination of the article history does not support the idea that there's a "long-standing consensus" for organizing this part of the article around the three categories of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. A structure similar to that I reverted to is found in the the version from July of this year (with "Restorationism" relabled "Other" - my preference), the version from August of this year (again with the label "Other"), the version from March of this year, the version from November 1 of 2008, the version from August of 2008, and a totally different structure - "mainstream" versus "ecumenism" was found in the version from December of 2007.

There simply is no long-standing consensus structuring this "divisions" section of this article around only the big three of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. If anything, the long-term history of the article suggests ongoing efforts to address a broader array of Christian groups. It would seem that we need to find a structure that can do this in a consensus manner that is supportable and helpful to readers. EastTN (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, it would seem we have a consensus that "Restorationism" does not belong as a group with it's own section in the 'divisons' chapter. Does anyone disagree with that, before we move on? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether I agree with what you are saying or not. If you are only addressing the term Restorationism, maybe. If you are attempting to excise any mention of them, then we have a major problem and I disagree absolutely.

Two editors have mentioned a concern that have a single section that addresses all of the other churches is "too much emphasis". I beg to differ. The entire article is written from the orthodox position, as it should be. Any editor that knows me knows that I have been a long-time proponent of focusing on majority position. Please do not get twisted that the article dares to mention some of the other groups in a single section. It is required that it be mentioned to be balanced. It is appropriate to mention the major churches in this group.

If what you are proposing is to excise the entire section, then please wait. I think you will find more editors that will take a position given time. ^StormRider 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what I am supporting is finding a different way to categorize these groups currently lumped together under "Restorationism" - not eliminating them. EastTN (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not my intention to remove any mention of Restorationism. My aim is to make the the space devoted to them commensurate with their significance. My focus is only on the 'groupings' section. Currently Restorationism is artificially promoted there to have a significance equivalent with Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and that seems to me - and clearly to others here - to be overpromotion. It should also be noted that there are many other groups which are as large and significant as Restorationism which currently don't get a mention there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant are the most common divisions. However, it is standard in religious studies to further subdivide Protestantism into Reformation and post-Reformation churches and movements. Reformation groups include Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. Post-Reformation movements include Restorationism, Pentecostalism, and Methodism. It is not uncommon, but far from a universal or majority practice, to include a further subdivision. This additional category is usually based around hereterodox churches, Christian new religious movements, and/or modern (20th century+) churches. This grouping is sometimes further subdivided into theologically or doctrinally conservative and liberal groups. This may be more useful for a broader map of the Christianity article group. For this specific article, I think it suffices to use the standard three-fold division, with the Protestant coverage only dividing into the Reformation and post-Reformation divisions. Leave the finer grained details for other articles without such a broad overview. Please note that I am opposed to the "other" category as proposed above. Latter-day Saints, Adventists, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so forth may be heterodox, but standard literature places them firmly as part of the Protestant tradition. Placing them in an "other" category is as much reflecting a minority viewpoint (in terms of scholarly and reliable sources) as overemphasizing their scholarly importance. Vassyana (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you Vassyana. Maybe some brief mention should be made that some groups consider themselves to be outside of the three groupings? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that we may be close to finding a way forward. My experience is that historians who focus on these groups are more likely to classify them outside the "Protestant" grouping than are historians for whom they are a sideline. My sense is that historians are also somewhat more likely to distinguish non-trinitarian groups separately. I don't think either of those is critical at this point, though. I'd like to suggest the following:

1) Let's subdivide the Protestant category into several main groupings (we can discuss what those should be);

2) Let's not use the category "Restorationism" - as I've argued before, as best I can tell, it's simply not supported by the best sources. Instead, let's distinguish between the LDS movement, the Restoration Movement, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

3) Let's avoid organizing the taxonomy around "orthodox" and "heterodox". Readers unfamiliar with the subject may be confused between this usage of the term "orthodox" and the "Orthodox" churches. Also, it at least implies a POV.

4) Per the discussion below, let's also include a "Non-Trinitarian" category. My preference would be to put it outside the "Protestant" category, but I won't arm-wrestle anyone over that. EastTN (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with points 1-3. However I don't think non-Trinitarians deserve a separate section at the same level as the three big ones. Non-Trinitarians account for a few percent of Christians at best. I would suggest a brief sentence saying that there are groups that claim to lie outside the three main divisions and leave the details to another article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-trinitarian interpretations are rare now, but are of major historical importance. IIRC, the trinity (as three in one) only became popular in the third century. And even then, Arianism had a good shot at becoming predominant for another century or so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can move forward with 1 through 3, then.

On non-trinitarianism, it's clearly a minority view, but there are several modern groups that are non-trinitarian, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Christadelphians and Iglesia ni Cristo. We shouldn't suggest that the category is anywhere as large or as prominent as, say, Catholicism, but it would seem that the Jehovah's Witnesses (for example) are notable. There's also some benefit in illustrating for the reader the wide diversity found in modern-day Christianity. I guess I'd lean towards a short section that briefly defines non-trinitarianism, identifies the groups, indicates roughly how many adherents they have, and links out to the relevant detailed articles. It wouldn't need to be long, and if handles in a straight-up fashion shouldn't imply that the category is somehow equivalent to any of the other categories. EastTN (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream

Since this is a separate subject, let's talk about the "Mainstream" statements at the top of the "divisions" section. "Mainstream" is a term which is always used in the context of a minority. For example if you are talking about pacifist churches then everyone else is "Mainstream". If you are talking about Pentecostals then everyone else is also "mainstream". To try to define "mainstream" outside any context is simply to assume that the division you define it against is the only significant one, and thus draw attention to the minority you define it against: in this case non-Trinitarianism (funny, where have we heard people trying to draw attention to that grouping before?).

To define "mainstream" versus "non-Trinitarian" at the top of this section is in effect a statement that Trinitarian v non-Trinitarian is the most significant division, and that is POV pushing, especially when non-Trinitarians are such a small percentage of the faith. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point. While it is true that "trinitarians" comprise the largest, almost overwhelming (I think, I haven't actually checked the numbers) percentage of Christians, it does seem to overemphasize the non-rinitarians. However, in another sense, it could be, potentially, the most important differentiation between Christians, given the generally significant theological and other differences that arise from it, and the fact that nontrinitarianism probably has a longer history than many of the other differentiations. I would invite furthr comments, although, personally, at this point, I would at least substitute "trinitarian" for "mainstream" in the text. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Trinitarian is a preferable term. This doctrine is foundational for all orthodox or mainstream churches. In fact, it is the lack of belief in the Trinity that causes many to label churches heretic or cult. As John has said, this doctrine has been disputed from the very beginning and continues to this day. If we don't use Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian, what do you propose that we use? Should we cover these groups or are they so insignificant they should be excised form the article? ^StormRider 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the Trinitarian/Non-Trinitarian distinction is one that's easier to make, and much more meaningful theologically, than a "mainstream"/"non-mainstream" distinction. On the other hand, you do see the term "mainstream churches" in the news media fairly often. If we could find a good source that defines that usage it might be helpful (on the other hand, it may not be that well defined). EastTN (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Trinitarian/Non-Trinitarian are preferable. 1) "Mainstream" could possibly be confused with "Mainline" as in "Mainline Protestant" as a liberal contrast with Evangelicals. 2) "Mainstream" is undefined, while Trinitarian is defined. 3) "Mainstream" is a judgment laced term, while Trinitarian is neutral.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We do have an article, if you want to call it that, mainstream Christianity, which could presumably be linked to by other articles, although I would myself hesitate to link to it in its current state. This article from a professor at GTU is one reason I would hesitate to link to it, although I am curious which if any of you, unlike me, are from beyond the US/Canada area, and whether the phrase "mainstream Christianity" is used much there. The article linked to refers specifically to the American mainstream Christianity, leaving out the Eastern Orthodox. That being the case, although it might be hard to find a direct reference, I would think maybe using the apparent functional definition of Catholic/Protestant Christianity, or maybe a phrase like the "Catholic-Protestant mainstream" might be at least possible. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with DJ Clayworth and John Carter's comments above. But I am surprised that you guys are trying to make "decisions" here. What the online encyclopedia needs is not decisions made by 10 people of what these terms are, but to reflect what the actual usage is in the world, and that needs sources not opinions. Anyway, I give up here, but please do NOT let this article be used as a PR platform for new definitions of religious groups. Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually used Google, GoogleBooks, and GoogleScholar searching for the term, and couldn't find any reliable sources which defined the term. I think that lack of clear definitions might be one of the reasons we are forced to take such unpleasant steps as trying to decide how to apply the term. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be that "mainstream" is not a useful term unless compared to another, minority view. In view of that, does anyone disagree with it's removal from the "divisions" section? I'm happy to let this sit for a few days to allow for more people to express objections. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My only caveat is that a Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian division actually implies that there are Christians who are non-Trinitarian, whereas Christianity's historic self definition explicitly precludes non-Trinitarianism from the meaning of the word "Christian." While I do approve of neutral terms, there is a concern that such neutrality will negate the self definition of the group. It would be akin to maintaining a neutrality between Orthodox and Messianic Judaism to such a point that people thought Messianism was actually a kind of "Judaism" instead of merely a form of "Christianity."

At the same time "Mainstream" also gives the impression that there is a minority view that is non-Trinitarian. There is no such minority view within "Christianity" any more than belief in Jesus as God would be a minority view of "Judaism" or that infant baptism were a minority view of "Baptists" (none of which are true).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure what you're referring to when you say "Christianity's historic self-definition". I am aware of the various council statements and the like, but those are really not from "Christianity" in the general sense but those partiular Christians who attended and won at those conferences. Those councils and others purported to speak for "Christianity" as a whole, and I think most people today and throughout history would agree with them, but it seems to rule out as well some of the early people who sometimes clearly were what was then called "Christians" as the term was then definied who lived prior to those early councils. I am thinking in particular of the Monarchians and Adoptionists, and certainly the early Arians, and the like, most of whom did see themselves as Christians, and I believe can be demonstrated to have described themselves as such as well. While those councils and others were clearly using the term "Christian" and "non-Christian", a number of people who described themselves as "Christians" disagreed with those councils, and we really shouldn't take the opinion of one side in any debate over that of the other. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that these groups regarded themselves to be Christian, just as Messianics regard their religion to be Judaism. There is a point, however, that the self-definition of one group negates the self definition of another. If Messianics represent Judaism, then the Orthodox do not. If Jehovah's Witnesses (Arians) represent Christianity, then Trinitarians do not. These self definitions are mutually exclusive on the level of "religion" and not just "denomination."SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unitarians, Adoptionists, Modalists, and so forth are certainly regarded as heterodox, but it is an extreme minority view in scholarly literature to place them outside of Christianity. Vassyana (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with SykWriter's definition of Christianity. This conversation has been had on this page on countless occasions and it will end in the same way because of NPOV. None of the first apostles could be convicted of being Christians if we are to use 4th century definitions...not a single one. You are talking about beliefs of specific churches and nothing more. There is not a single church that has been identified as THE church to speak for Christianity; if so, please provide that reference. In fact, please provide a reference for being a disciple of Christ from the Bible. You will find that none of this doctrine you talking about existed. Jesus did not require of his disciples and none of the apostles required it of any of the other followers.

I have a deep, abiding appreciation for Catholicism, but I am not Catholic. I am part of heterodoxy as are millions of other people in the world. Trinitarian doctrine is a 4th century construct; you may want to require it to be identified as Christian, but that is your doctrine and your belief only. Though I can respect your beliefs, I also realize that Christianity is much broader than what you believe or think. ^StormRider 07:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

SkyWriter (Tim) it's absolutely true that Wikipedia is horribly inconsistent here, considering Mormons and JWs to be Christians because they self-identify as such, but refusing to treat Messianics as Jews because other Jews don't accept them; but that is the way of things and it's not going to change. I suggest concentrating on the question of how much weight should be given to these groups in this article. I'm going to assume from your comments that you don't think much weight should be given. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ, right -- I don't think much weight should be given. Ultimately, "NPOV" is often subverted by those who have a strong need to promote their own POV. Normally that's a minority group. Messianics do not represent a minority of "Judaism" but rather the Christian majority. Observant Jews, on the other hand, are a minority group and will fight tooth and nail to maintain a distinction on Wikipedia. In the same way, Storm represents a minority group that wants to claim to be "Christianity," while the actual group of "Christianity" is not threatened by numbers and won't fight so hard. Storm has an agenda and wishes to promote it. Christians themselves lack the interest to combat his agenda and normally step out of the way. But that doesn't mean he represents NPOV. It merely means that he is more motivated in his POV. Regardless, the best solution here would be to allow those who claim to be Christians to be represented on this page, with a caveat that the historic self-definition of Christian boundaries (i.e. the Nicene Creed) does not regard these groups to be Christian. THAT would be NPOV. 1) These are all the notable and verifiable groups that claim to be Christian, and that 2) the majority of self-identifying Christians agree with some form of the Nicene Creed, which precludes non-Trinitarianism. That gives all the information that's needed, and it doesn't state that Storm's group is damned or false or anything like that -- merely that they are different (and could presumably be right at the expense of Nicene Christianity).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't seem that difficult - or that confusing to the reader - to have a section that discusses non-trinitarian groups, notes that they self-identify as Christian, and further notes that some/many trinitarians disagree because they see non-trinitarians as denying an essential tenet of Christianity. We should be able to do that without taking sides. EastTN (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Self-identify" is odd to me. Do we say that Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans self-identify as Christian? It may be better to say that X,Y,Z churches reject the Christianity of x,y, and z churches. Central tenants of Christianity are in the eye of the beholder and for Trinitarianism it is doctrine for the majority of Christian churches, but the majority of churches do not have a license to define Christianity. For example, what do you call a church that teaches: Jesus, the only begotten Son of the God the Father, born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, performed miracles, was crucified for the sins of the world, rose the third day, ascended to His Father, and will return one day? The definition of Christianity is much broader than individual churches use, because individual churches use definitions that meet their needs and their doctrine.

What is the definition of Christianity that we are going to use? Let's get over this and then that will direct the way we handle churches in the article. 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're using "self-identify" to indicate that we would use the following operational definition of Christianity - "a church is, for the purposes of this article, included as Christian if it says that it's Christian." It's not a particularly crisp or elegant definition, but it has the advantage of being NPOV. EastTN (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Functionally, that can work because Christianity is not a minority religion with another majority religion trying to swallow it up. A number of groups have tried to co-opt the "Jewish" brand, which is a real problem because of their minority status. As for Christianity, the groups (such as Storm's) that try to steal the name are themselves in a minority and ultimately won't engulf Christianity itself. That said, however, it is not NPOV to indiscriminantly include all these non-Christian groups under the name without some kind of caveat that they and Nicene Christianity regard each other to be mutually exclusive. When a Mormon knocks on a Baptist's door they describe themselves as "Christians." When the Baptist replies that he's already a Christian they would shake his hand and leave IF they were actually Christians. The fact that they continue to try to convert him demonstrates that they are only using the name to confuse their status, rather than reveal it. Before Stom goes jumping up and down about my POV problem, just remember that I'm advocating including all notable and verifiable self described "Christians" in the article, with a mere caveat that they and Nicene Christianity each regard the other group as excluded from the term. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, insist that they are "Christians" to the EXCLUSION of Methodists or Presbyterians. Protestants and Catholics regard themselves to be "Christians" to the EXCLUSION of Jehovah's Witnesses. We do not have to say which group is "right" (that's POV). But we certainly should be encyclopedic enough to record that certain groups are exclusive of others.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter, you make extremely good points, and I agree with many of them, and what they imply. But I have fought this battle for many years, and you are NOT going to persuade Wikipedia to accept any definition of Christian that does not include the fringe groups that call themselves that. I strongly suggest everyone accepts that and gets on with deciding what is going to go in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course Skeywriter's logic will not win the day because it is POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. He seems to want to make a great deal of my belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; however, my position is firmly based upon policy and my religious affiliation has never been a secret. Those editors who have worked with me know that I take a neutral position seriously whether I am discussing the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other topic. I reject any premise that I know to be POV regardless of the group being attacked. My religious affiliation is irrelevant and you would do well focus on what is being discussed rather than me.

DJ and I have banged heads before and we work wonderfully together when I am discussing the need that the majority position should be the highlight of the article. The current article just prior to the changes was a reflection of that position. 98% of the article talks solely about the orthodox, mainstream position and virtually ignores the breadth of Christian doctrine. The fact that we are fighting about mentioning some of the minority positions has more to do with the POV of the editors involved than anthing else. Though it is a healthy conversation, in a few months we will have the same discussion again. It sort of never ends...of course, killing each other over religion never ends either; humanity does not do a very good job of learning the simple things about any religion. It is times like these that I contemplate on the beauty of St. Francis' message. DJ is right, let's move on. ^StormRider 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm, since I'm not a Christian, my objection to a non-Trinitarian group being labelled as "Christian" is an objection on English grounds rather than religious ones. It's not a matter of POV, since either of your mutually exclusive "Christian" groups could be "true Christianity" -- but not both. If you are Christian, then Baptists are not because your group takes great pains to convert and save Baptists from their false religion. If you are trying to convert someone from their religion, then you are not in the same religion. The same holds true for Baptist missionaries who specifically train their church members to witness to Mormons and save them from their religion. Again, we are talking about mutual exclusivity rather than truth. As I've stated here, I have no objection for mutually exclusive religions being included by their self designation of the term "Christian," but that mutual exclusivity must be mentioned. That does not make your group "false"; it only makes your group "different." Include the Mormons and other non-Christian groups, but also include a caveat. That is far more generous than would be done for Messianic Jews, but that has to do with the minority status of Judaism itself.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That is simply false logic. Yes, Christians are now Jews and Jews are not Islamic, but all are still Abrahamic religions, since they share Abraham in common. Similarly, all groups that share Christ, despite interpretations are Christians. Bytebear (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear -- thanks for your post. My logic is simply that groups get to define themselves, and if you have two groups each claiming the other is not a member of that group, then you at least make a note. Generally the majority wins the "name", not because they are "right" but simply because that's what most people will default to when they use the name. Judaism is an example. "Messianic" (i.e. Christian) "Jews" claim to represent Judaism, but claim to represent a more authentic Judaism than Jewish Jews do. Conversely, Jewish Jews don't regard "Messianic" (i.e. Christian) "Jews" to represent "Judaism", but rather "Christianity" (i.e. Messianism). Who's right? Well, I'm sure that a Christian might believe that Messianic Judaism is what Jewish Judaism is supposed to be, but isn't. The word "Jewish" then defaults to the group we normally mean when we use the term. Even if Messianic Judaism were absolute truth, it would still mean that Jewish Judaism was NOT truth. They are mutually exclusive, and act accordingly when they each try to save the others from their groups. This isn't about theology per se, but normative use of the English language. While your definition is charming and simple, no major Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern denomination would accept it. And, quite honestly, neither would the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't think imposing a definition that most of the groups reject is very helpful.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

AEB (Nicene)

Clearly, most of the largest and best-known Christian churches accept the Nicene Creed. Those groups generally consider groups that do not at least implicitly accept the Creed as heterodox. Nonetheless, I do think it's taking a particular POV to adopt the Nicene Creed as the definition of Christianity. Not only are there groups that explicitly disagree with the Nicene Creed, such as the LDS, but there are other groups that may substantively agree with the theology of the Creed, but reject creeds as a matter of policy, such as the churches of Christ.

Reading the discussion, though, I think we can get to a working consensus. If I'm understanding it correctly:

1) Sky strongly believes that the article should note that some churches do not believe that others are truly Christian; and

2) I haven't heard anyone disagree with that.

I'd like to suggest that we:

a) Adopt the operational definition that "a church is, for the purposes of this article, included as Christian if it says that it's Christian"; and

b) Develop sourced text that describes that many churches that adhere to the Nicene Creed do not recognize groups that do not accept the creed as "Christian"; then

c) Move on to discussing which subfamilies of "Protestant" we need, and whether the "non-Nicene" and "non-Trinitarian" groups fall under "Protestant" or under another heading.

I would offer one caution on b) - casting anathemas at each other is not limited to people looking at each other across the Nicene non-Nicene divide, and there have been countless groups over the years claiming to be the only "true" Christians. We could create the impression that Nicene Christians are all holding hands and singing kumbaya while making common cause against non-Nicene Christians. That's too simplistic (Catholics and Protestants have been known to kill each other, and Baptists do in fact try to convert members of the churches of Christ, who in turn try to convert Baptists . . . ). EastTN (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, East. The only problem I would have would be including non-Nicene groups as Protestants. Many certainly did spring historically from Protestant groups, but they did not remain Protestant. Everything else is fine. As I've stated multiple times, I'm not judging which group is "right" -- only noting that they themselves claim to be different and act accordingly. I don't think the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses would appreciate being confused with those rascally Trinitarian Protestants.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In biology, cladistics are increasingly taking the place of more traditional classification, where a clade consists of all descendants of a given ancestor. This has the advantage of defining a unique tree structure showing the evolutionary relationships. Of course, in that sense, Judaism -> Christianity -> Niceene Creed -> Catholic -> Protestant -> Mormons, and so all Mormons would also be followers of a deviant branch of Judaism (and so would Sunni Muslims ;-). Of course for religions this is complicated by sideways borrowing much more than for biology... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sky, I agree - in my opinion, the non-trinitarian groups should fall in a third category. Some of the earlier comments seemed to suggest a strong preference for shoe-horning any group that developed after the Reformation into the "Protestant" category. I don't agree, but it seemed to me a second-order battle at this point - that's why I suggested having that discussion after we reached agreement on a & b. If there's consensus on a & b, I'd suggest as a starting point Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Non-Trinitarian.EastTN (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that division, especially since some of the older non-Trinitarians don't hail from any Protestant groups at all.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as this label is broad enough to cover all the groups not covered by the major groups, C, O, & P, I have no problem with it. Are any of the groups that would fit here Trinitarian to anyone's knowledge? ^StormRider 05:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the Trinitarian groups are Christian.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Timmy, we all know your zealous position. Thank you for reminding us. Have you thought of using a private blog to further expand upon your position? Maybe you could also talk about how to burn those damnable heretics that exist in the world. You could also sponsor movements that force all to pray like you direct; an absolute pattern without any flexibility. What fun we all could have.

Of course, you could also just read the Bible. In fact, please provide a single verse, just one, where Jesus taught the same thing you are espousing here and required it of any of those who followed Him. Just one; when you find that you can't do it, go an and ask your spiritual advisor if he or she knows of one; when they can't, then please admit it completely to yourself. Know that those who follow the Master come in all shapes, sizes, and have a diverse set of beliefs. They all are on the path of truth, but are at different places on that path. Realize that it is okay and that they are in God's hands every bit as much as you. Isn't that a novel thought!

Wikipedia has nothing to do with truth; NOTHING. We report facts as stated by reliable sources and that is all. We require a strict neutrality of editors when writing articles.

Oh, and I will wait to hear about your search of the scriptures. Just one is all. ^StormRider 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Storm, since I'm Jewish, I don't care in the least what absolute truth you think you've found or what Jesus himself said. As I've said many times, YOU COULD BE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in your absolute truth and it still wouldn't be what we normatively call "Christianity" as the vast majority of self labelled Christians have defined themselves for a good millenium and a half. You could have the one true Christianity and it still wouldn't be "Christianity" as that word is normatively used in the English language. For the sake of argument I'll grant that you've found the true religion. Bravo! That means that "Christianity" is a false religion since your missionaries are trying to save "Christians" from their faith. Get off your POV high horse and realize that Wikipedia is an ENGLISH language resource, and the normative use of a term bears some weight if we are trying to avoid misdirecting people. You keep thinking that I mean "false" when I say "non-Christian." I myself am "non-Christian" and "non-Trinitarian" and I'm perfectly content. I'm glad you are too. But I'm NOT Christian and you aren't either.

Again (yet again) I'm content with including all groups that call themselves "Christian" as long as there is a caveat that some groups are mutually exclusive. That's not POV. That's just ENGLISH.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I give up. When ignorance speaks with conviction all logic is dismissed and silence is the better path. ^StormRider 17:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't complicated, Storm. I'm open to all self styled "Christians" being listed with a note that some are mutually exclusive. This isn't a judgment of who's right and wrong, just a note that they are different. Take a deep breath and it will be okay.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppose this was about environmentalism instead of Christianity. Suppose that a large majority of self-styled environmentalists oppose nuclear power, and many of them regard anyone who supports it as a non-environmentalist. Suppose also that a relatively small minority of self-styled environmentalists support nuclear power but many of them regard their opponents as environmentalists who simply disagree on one point of environmental doctrine. Would it be necessary to make a point in the environmentalism article that the two beliefs are mutually exclusive? Is it sensible to argue that the two groups should not both be labeled "environmentalist"? alanyst ^/talk/ 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Analyst, if one were to include conservationists with environmentalists without some kind of caveat, one would create the illusion that the normative meaning of "environmentalist" was pro-nuclear power. It does no service to either the majority or minority group. IF the conservationists were trying to co-opt the name, then include them, but make a note that the majority of "environmentalists" would exclude them from the term. That way you honor the usage and meaning of all groups in a NPOV way.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

While trinitarianism and non-trinitarianism are clearly mutually exclusive, so are many other doctrinal issues. A simple one is Sola Scriptura, versus the idea that sacred tradition and the teaching magisterium of the church are also infallible sources of Christian doctrine. There are many others: do we have charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit today (such as glossalia), or did the end with the early church? Is baptism necessary for salvation, or does Sola Fide mean that insisting on baptism is falling back on "works salvation?" If we use "mutually exclusive" doctrine as a basis for deciding who's in and who's out, we'll end up with more splits than we know what to do with. EastTN (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We would be having the same discussion if we had tongue speaking infant baptizers calling themselves Southern Baptists. We would include them (as long as they were notable and verifiable) with a caveat that Southern Baptists would not. You have to honor the usage and meaning of ALL notable and verifiable groups, giving the greatest weight to the most notable and verifiable of the groups. We don't want to get into a situation in which Wikipedia editors are reinventing terms and meanings. We merely report -- we do not create original research, which would include redefining Christianity or any other group in a way that the majority of that group would reject. Jehovah's Witnesses DO call themselves Christians, but they do NOT think Baptists and Presbyterians are Christians, merely the deluded in some apostate group they call "Christendom." Well, let's respect Jehovah's Witnesses' own use of the term, and ALSO the exclusivity they claim. Let's respect Mormons in the same way. And let's ALSO respect actual Christians too.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AEB (Drake & Chick)

(outdented)

Trinitarian Christians do not accept each other, either. Just look back a few hundred years, and try to explain to Francis Drake that Catholics are Christians - or try to explain that to Jack Chick now. On the other hand, the German Evangelical Creed I learned as a kid lists Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but is quite quite on their relationship (is Christ god, man, both, neither, of similar substance or the same substance as the father, begotten or created or eternal...), and thus would easily cover any number of heresies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sky, Stephan is right, you're missing the point - we have conservative Baptists who don't believe that Catholics are real Christians; and, in turn, members of churches of Christ who don't believe the Baptists are real Christians. The Jehovah's Witnesses are simply not the only Christian group that claims exclusivity, or that characterizes churches that disagree with them as a "deluded apostate group." It doesn't make sense, and isn't neutral, to seize on the exclusivity of the JH and LDS in order to develop an implicit Wikipedia definition of "actual Christians" while totally ignoring all of the other, millennia long, endemic squabbling among all the other branches of Christianity over what it means to truly be a Christian. EastTN (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's right that Nicene Christians have anathematized each other. Protestants and Catholics have done so, and I've seen Southern Baptists condemn OTHER Southern Baptists of not being Christians at all. There are dozens of litmus tests that have been out there. The broadest and oldest, however, is the Nicene Creed. There's nothing explicit in the New Testament designed to do such a thing, and it's a primary document anyway. My point is that you have to use something as a self-definition of what is meant by the word Christian. That doesn't make it right. It only makes it normative. Please understand that I have no stake in one group being right or wrong here. It's just that the broadest and oldest exclusivity boundary I know of is the Nicene Creed, and that is precisely what it was designed to be, and what it is treated as by countless Christian churches throughout the world as they recite it each Sunday. It is also the most attacked by the non-Trinitarian groups. The Trinity may not be an absolute boundary of truth, but it is certainly treated as an absolute boundary by BOTH Trinitarian AND non-Trinitarian groups. We Wikipedia editors aren't here to redefine Christianity or make up definitions from scratch. That's original research. Fortunately, we don't have to do so, since the Nicene Creed was designed and is used for this precise purpose.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"The broadest and oldest, however, is the Nicene Creed." By adopting that definition, over all others when self-professed Christians disagree with it, you're advocating that we adopt a particular point of view. You're also fundamentally misunderstanding the situation. The Nicene Creed simply is not used the way you suggest - folks that adopt the Nicene Creed to not treat every else who also professes it as being all equally "Christian" - they don't treat each other as all being within, as you put it, an "exclusivity boundary." Beyond that, many Protestants - especially evangelicals - do not regard the Creed as authoritative and do not recite it. It simply is not a test of who's Christian "in good standing and within the fold" that's recognized and accepted by all Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants.

Granted, the Trinitarian/Non-Trinitarian distinction is fundamental; I've repeatedly argued that we should place non-trinitarians in a separate category. Beyond that, any group that doesn't claim allegience to Christ as a fundamental tenet of faith arguably isn't Christian - but then again, they don't generally claim to be Christian either.

I think you'll find that we make more progress if, instead of focusing on defining Christianity, we concentrate on developing a meaningful taxonomy of those groups that claim to be Christian. That sort of descriptive approach is simpler, easier to keep NPOV, and will result in a finite set of groups (Buddhists who think Jesus may have been enlightened still do not self-identify as "Christian"). EastTN (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

East, my purpose is to find the broadest and oldest existing boundary of faith (which is the purpose of a Creed). I appreciate that you are trying to find exceptions, but that's the point: it's easier to find exceptions from some widely held Creed than it is to create a brand new definition on the fly. I think you and I are agreed that Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians should be placed in a separate category. My reasons are the self definition of the Nicene Creed and its widespread historical adoption. Your reasons are... ??? And that's the problem. You aren't using any existing self defined boundary with broad historical use. Without such it's just your opinion over Storms, in an encyclopedia that doesn't allow ANY of our opinions to matter (and rightly so). The only thing we can do is to find the most inclusive self defined boundary with notable and verifiable use for such a purpose. Other than the Nicene Creed, nothing is even a close second. Without it, there really is nothing to describe. Granted, you could arbitrarily decide on your own to use a Trinitarian / non-Trinitarian division, but there is no justification for it, and no legitimate reason to prevent Storm from eradicating that boundary once you get tired of trying to enforce it. You're up against a very highly motivated POV and need to use something with historically notable and verifiable use. If not the Nicene Creed, then what? Your opinion? My opnion? We aren't allowed to use such as a foundation for anything.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sky, I recognize that your "purpose is to find the broadest and oldest existing boundary of faith." My purpose is to find a neutral, reader-friendly way of organizing the plethora of groups that describe themselves as "Christian." Why? Because that's what we need to improve the article. Fighting about the one true definition of Christianity, or the oldest definition of Christianity, is proving to be nothing but a needless distraction. There's simply no need for Wikipedia to adopt a definition of "Christian" for this article that excludes a significant number of people or groups that self-identify as "Christian." Even if we wanted to, it's much more difficult than you seem to realize. What you are describing as "exceptions" are fundamental theological differences within the "exclusivity boundary" that you're trying to create. The binary distinction between "Nicene" Christians who all recognize each other as fellow-Christians, and "non-Nicene" Christians on the other side is illusory. EastTN (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The "broadest and oldest existing boundary of faith" is much older than the Nicene Creed. More importantly, standard, secular, reliable sources all define being a Christian or Christianity as based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels. See Encarta, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Free Dictionary.com, American Heritage. None of the sources mention Nicene Creed. The NC is a doctrine of belief; it is not the definition of Christianity. It is true that the Catholic Church has used it as a fundamental statement of belief and other churches have also used it in the same way. However, for Wikipedia that is only a POV and not a fact. What is paramount, according to reliable sources, for being a Christian is a belief in Jesus as the Messiah and an acceptable of the New Testament as a record of his teachings.

You may want to consider reading L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, or Karen Armstrong, The Great Transformation to gain a greater understanding of Christianity and its evolution. I have provided sources that directly contradict your opinion. Please provide those references for your position. Prior to presenting them, it will be helpful to review Wikipedia policies on neutrality again. --^StormRider 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Storm -- not only do no Trinitatarian denominations accept your sources as boundaries, but no non-Trinitarian religions do either. Neutrality is achieved by using sources that the subject groups accept for themselves as their boundaries. Jehovah's Witnesses with happily and enthusiastically use the Nicene Creed as a boundary (of what they reject). Mormons will as well. Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox will just as happily and enthusiastically use the Nicene Creed as a boundary of what they accept. While some neat and efficient definition of "belief in Jesus" as the Son of God may be attractive, the adjustment from the Apostle's Creed to the Nicene showed that your definition was judged insufficient over a millenium and a half ago. You need to catch up with the epoch.

By using only NON Christian (i.e. secular) sources to define Christianity, and rejecting the boundaries set by Christians themselves, you betray a bias toward original research, as well as a bias against the group in question. Jehovah's Witnesses adamantly do NOT want to be confused with Protestants or any other Trinitarians, and make great efforts to argue against your position. Thousands of Mormon missionaries do the same. These groups do not want to be classified together, and your agenda to gloss over that fact does no favor to any group at all.

Now for neutrality: As far as I am personally concerned, the Mormons could be 100% correct, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, about what "Christianity" is. I have no personal stake, POV, or need to label any of these groups as "false" or the Nicene Creed as "true." My only contention is that 1) all groups calling themselves "Christian" should be included in the article, and 2) all heterodox and orthodox groups should be classified in a separate division with a note that they do not accept each other as "Christians." My position neither states, or cares, which side (if any) are "true." THAT would be a question for many sources to research and state. Since I don't care, I merely wish for groups that reject each other to be noted for doing so. That's accurate, encyclopedic, neutral (since I don't care which side is "right"), and respectful.

I'll repeat this one more time to make it clear -- I'll grant for the sake of argument that Mormonism represents the one true manifestation of Christianity on this planet. Congratulations. That means Catholics DON'T. Right? Right.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Mormons regard Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. all as Christians, characterized by their belief in Jesus as Messiah and their acceptance of the New Testament. The fact that they proselyte to them doesn't mean they regard them as non-Christian. You are ascribing views to Mormons (and most likely other groups too) that they do not actually hold. If you want an LDS perspective on the distinction, I invite you over to my talk page so we don't further derail this conversation here. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Analyst, I'm sure you are correct, but I'm also sure that you recognize that the compliment does not go both ways. And maybe that's where we can draw the boundary here: two-way recognition. That is, does a significant view exist in the institutions of BOTH groups that they represent the same religion? Everyone here seems to be agreed that some Trinitarians still reject each other, and most seem to agree that there is a fundamental boundary between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. Where I seem to be in the minority is a recognition that there actually is a self defined reference used historically as the boundary of Trinitarian belief. Fine. But that leaves us with a problem. The terms "orthodox" and "heterodox" seem to be used here, even by Storm. But something is only "orthodox" or "heterodox" based against a specific baseline. "Orthodox" Judaism and "Orthodox" Christianity are radically different things. "Orthodox" does not (for our purposes) equate to "objectively true," but rather "subjectively conforming to a certain baseline." For Jews, it's the Talmud, or Mishneh Torah, or at least the Shulchan Aruch. For Christians it is... what? Belief in Jesus? Well, no, because even Storm will call some Jesus-believing groups "heterodox." So what, exactly, is that normative (not "true" but merely "normative") baseline that Storm is using when he uses the word "heterodox", and does that baseline correspond to the baseline used by a greater number of Christian churches than any other baseline?

We can certainly make a division between "orthodox" and "heterodox," but we're standing on water if we do so without some kind of historically accepted baseline. "Belief in Jesus" would make NO self-styled "Christians" to be "heterodox." ALL would be "orthodox" by that referece.

And while some "orthodox" groups will regect each other, they are far MORE accepting of each other than they are of "heterodox" groups, regardless of whether or not those heterodox groups are feeling charitably toward the eternal destiny of those orthodox groups they are still trying to save.

All I'm saying is that we cannot use terms like "orthodox" or "heterodox" in a vacuum. I'm "orthodox" but I am not a Christian (I'm an orthodox Jew). Some reference point needs to be used in this article or we'll be arguing with Storm till the Messiah comes (or comes back). He has a great need to include all "Christian" heresies under the label of "Christian" without the caveat of "heresy." He needs to do so because he is using the term "Christian" with the subtext of "true" and using "heresy" with the subtext of "false." I have no corresponding need because one man's heresy is another man's truth. These are subjective terms used against reference points that can only be stated by the groups themselves. Well, why not use those stated reference points? I'm an "orthodox" Jew but would certainly be a "heretical" Christian, and would be perfectly content the entire time.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Sky, do you have any references for the positions you have presented? Once you have references then let's discuss. What Wikipedia requires is reliable sources, which I have provided. Wikipedia policy does not say, nor has it ever said, that a reliable source must be acceptable to an entity before being reliable. I look forward to your references that state that the sources above are rejected by all Christian religions. --^StormRider 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Do YOU have any reference points against which you divide between the terms "orthodox" and "heterodox"? And are ANY of your references actually used by ANY of the groups we are discussing as the boundaries for their own beliefs? I find it most peculiar that you reject out of hand any references actually used by the groups in question, and then demand of me that I find some arcane statement that "all groups reject references" that most of them have neither heard, nor cared, about. Your argument is entirely specious.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this tit for tat has gone on too long, and I have a two day holiday to get ready for. I'll be gone until Sunday night or Monday. In the mean time, I'd be interested in anyone proposing a fixed reference point that "orthodox" and "heterodox" groups both recognize that they agree or disagree with. Otherwise, there's no point using those words at all; they have no context.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than try to argue over which primary source (New Testament, Nicene Creed, etc.) to use as a reference point for distinguishing Christian groups from each other -- why not do as others on this page have suggested and use the scholarly work that experts have done? Collectively come up with a list of authoritative sources covering a spectrum of notable views, then condense the work into a suitable summary of how the experts tend to classify the various movements and groups within Christianity. I think that's what EastTN, Stephan Schulz, and others have been trying to do. Picking the reference point ourselves for what divides "mutually exclusive" groups is out of scope for our role here as editors; we must let the authoritative secondary sources be the guide. If that means that Restorationism is dropped per WP:UNDUE or that Mormonism or Messianic Judaism get barely a mention, so be it. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem with your premise; we are not defining Christianity according to what Catholics think, or Eastern Orthodox, or Souther Baptists. That is POV. In fact, as far as the defintion goes for this article, Wikipedia does not care what any of them think; it is not concerened about who draws lines and segregates themselves from others FOR THIS ARTICLE. On individual church articles and in comparative religion articles we go into more detail explaining the differences. Wikipedia is interested in describing the wide range of all those churches that say they follow Jesus Christ for this main article. Given that there are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world the breadth of specific beliefs is quite broad. We will focus on the major beliefs taught by the majority of Christian churches. The article already does that. An individual church's doctrine is not the the basis for defining Christianity. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy does not exclude a church from Christianity. Individual churches may take that position, but that is only their POV. I still don't think you have grasped the concept of neutrality yet. You seem to want to assume that doctine for one must be doctrine for all and that is not the case. --^StormRider 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I DO have to step out for a couple of days, but you did it again. You used the terms "orthodoxy" and "heterodoxy" with no context or reference point. By your definition of "Christian" (as belief in Jesus), there are NO "heterodox" groups. ALL are "orthodox." Again I ask, what is your reference point against which something is "orthodox" or "heterodox"? It's none of the books you've mentioned, since they aren't used by ANY of the groups for that purpose. My NPOV is that all POVs be cited according to their reference points. Your NPOV is to ignore ANY POVs and treat them as if they don't exist. But that leaves you using terms like "orthodox" or "heterodox" in a vacuum.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also -- parting shot... your charge that I think one doctrine fits all is simply false. My point is that all groups have a reference point, and all hold themselves to be "orthodox" according to their own reference point. We cannot as Wikipedia editors step in and use words in a vacuum. Jehovah's Witnesses regard themselves to be orthodox (i.e. right thinkers) and everyone else to be heterodox. Their reference point is established by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Recognition of that gives context to the terms that we use when we describe them in this article, and we are limited to the contexts provided by these sources. We cannot simply come in and use terms with no context whatsoever. Of course, if your INTENTION is to obfuscate, then go right ahead.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms orthodoxy and heterodoxy come with qualifications of majority position. In this context, LDS, JWs, etc. are all heterodox religions. However, we were not discussing orthodox or heterodox, but Christianity. Wikipedia does not care about truth; it is wholly irrelevant to it because it is not an arbiter of truth. We report facts. This article is to describe in broad brush strokes what Christianity is. Some editors feel it is terribly important to spell out which church condemns other, that information may be important, but not in this main article.

You seem to want to put me and other editors in a box and you have assigned us a breadth of thinking that not one of us has espoused. None of us have talked about what is true and what is not. The only thing you have heard, repeatedly, is to be neutral. When discussing topics on Wikipedia, it is best to actually listen to what other editors say rather than assume what you think their position is. Go back and read the entire conversation again and see how many times you have introduced topics and made assumptions rather than just listen to what was each of us has said.

Who in the hell wants to obfuscate? That is exactly the kind of crap that you create that is just wild speculation and assumption with no basis in reality. Geez, put down the baggage and listen to others with an open mind. It wouldn't hurt to use references either. --^StormRider 19:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Storm, it is you who have made assumptions. You've assumed that I was discussing truth. I wasn't. I don't care which side is "true". I merely wish to note boundaries that the groups set. You've even assumed I was Christian and trying to espouse some kind of Christian doctrine. I'm Jewish and don't care which side is "right." You've also assumed that there is some kind of contextless meaning to terms like "orthodox" or "heterodox," when there is not. Every group defines its own orthodoxy, and our job is simply to present contexts in English. Finally, you've assumed that I care about doctrine. I do not. Again, I'm Jewish and could not possibly care less about Christian doctrinal truth. What I DO care about, and what you do NOT seem to care about, is the English language. You want to label all groups Christian or orthodox or heterodox without any kind of reference point that the groups themselves would recognize. Ultimately all that happens is that these words will reflect the POV of whichever editor is the most enthusiastic (in this case, it seems to be yourself).

The only box I'm trying to fit you into is an English one. Cite fixed reference points that the groups themselves use, reflect boundaries established by those reference points, and then move on.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I never learn. I always think that ignorance will learn, that they will see logic once it is explained. Seldom does that happen, but when it does it is worth it. Again, when ignorance speaks with conviction, it is best to stop because the mind is closed. Nothing gets in and only ignorance comes out. We're done. Love the references; typical behavior. Spout opinion ad nauseum, get challenged to prove it with references, ignore the challenge completely , keep spouting opinion. It was at least good for a laugh. Enjoy your weekend; please don't read any books or listen to anyone; just talk. If you read more and listened more you would lose your charm. --^StormRider 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Storm -- I think this will be helpful... you seem to use "Christian" with a subtext of "true" and "heretical" with a subtext of "false." That is, when I say that you are "heretical" according to the great bulk of "Christianity" you take that to mean "you're wrong." I'm not saying that at all. The fact is that EVERY group is "heretical" according to someone else's absolute standard. If I called myself Mormon then I would certainly be a "heretic" because my own doctrinal position is a Jewish one. If you called youself Jewish you'd be a "heretic" by Jewish standards. But you are (I presume) an "orthodox" Mormon just as I am an "orthodox" Jew. The terms "orthodox" and "heterodox" cannot simply be used here without some kind of reference point. This is Wikipedia, not the Baptist church. We can't use "heretic" as a synonym for "false." We can only use it in terms of a reference point that third parties themselves use. Do I PERSONALLY believe in the Nicene Creed? Of course not! It's simply a reference point against which these seemingly non-neutral terms can be neutralized for the article. Otherise all we have is POV. And I think that's what you are trying to do here. But insults and "ignorance" and bias accusations don't help your case.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's a reference point that not everyone uses though. Some want to exclude various groups for whatever. You have chosen the Nicene Creed as the definition of Christian. But I can find as many references from secular scholars that dispute this classification. You have an opinion, but you need verifiable references to back it up. I am sure there are many within various religious groups who choose to exclude other groups, but from a secular standpoint, and a neutral historical point, the argument simply is not universal. It just isn't. Bytebear (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Orthodox (capital O) is the name of a number of churches. "orthodox" (lower case O) has different meanings in different times and different contexts. How do you call Christians before 325 (or 381? Which Nicene Creed do you refer to? They are somewhat different...). We do not get to pick any particular definition - we use what reliable sources use. E.g. those dictionaries referenced above... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But that's just the problem -- none of those groups use those sources for their definitions. You can use a scholary source (please do!), but it has to have some kind of reference point. Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom" would be the best source that I know of for a reliable source, and it cites the Nicene Creed. But a "reliable source" that uses terms like orthodox or heterodox in a vacuum would not be helpful. From Storm's contorted arguments and insults, I have to assume that his sources don't cite any fixed points of reference actually used by the groups in question. I know a convert to Judaism: he is an "orthodox" Jew, AND an "apostate" Christian. But I can't just say that he is "orthodox" or "apostate" without context because they are EACH true in their contexts. A Jew who converted to the LDS church would be an "apostate" Jew, an "orthodox" Mormon, a "heretical" Christian, and a "non" Muslim -- each depending on a fixed reference point. My personal red alarms are flashing here because Storm is fighting tooth and nail to use NO reference points that the churches in question use. Should we use a scholarly source? Absolutely. Must that scholarly source use either the Nicene Creed or something like it? Of course! This shouldn't be an issue. It's not about right or wrong or true or false. It's merely about context. My objection isn't theological -- it's editorial.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The context of our conversation has been solely about Christianity - what is and what is not. Please focus on the discussion and do not bleed into other areas. Wikipedia does not care what is orthodox Christianity for this article i.e. one can be heterodox and still be listed as part of Christianity. The CONTEXT is Christianity that is it; nothing more and nothing less. You jumpted to another topic entirely, I suppose that was when you could not find any references for supporting your definition about what is and what is not Christianity. Young editors do that when they can't support their opinion; don't worry.

If you now want to move the topic to orthodox and heterodox; that is okay. I have already stated that non-Trinitarians are heterodox in their belief system. We are able to state that simply because it is the minority position. It is not a value judgment, but a statement of fact. The only person who has not provided a single reference for everything that they have said is you; not one!

This is a conversation that I have had on mulitple occaisions and it always ends the same because all academic references support the defintion of Christianity that I have already stated. The only references you will find for your position is from apologists, which is POV i.e. he context is limited to their specific POV.

So now, what is your topic? Do you want to admit that Christianity has a much broader definition or will you be providing references (I think you mentioned academic ones would be preferred). If you are arguing for othodox and heterdox, who has disagreed with you? --^StormRider 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I put it to you that this discussion is not improving the article. It is clear that "groups that profess to be followers of Jesus Christ" is the only reasonable definition of Christian for an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other definitions around (and yes, we can usually find references for them) but I think we should move on. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm officially taking my leave of this particular discussion. EastTN (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this conversation is not improving the article, because Storm has an agenda. "Heterodox Christianity" is not "Christianity." It is simply a false claim of being Christianity -- hence the term "heterodox." Storm has not provided a SINGLE reference that Christians THEMSELVES use in their self definition, and ignored mine -- the Nicene Creed. He does this becuase he wants to change the definition of "Christianity" into something Christians themselves do not recognize. Further, he has demanded that I provided non-Christian academic sources to define what Christianity is -- knowing that I am insisting on using self definitions to determine the normative meaning of a group. Baptists define what Baptists are. Christians define what Christians are. When a minority group disagrees with the normative definition, they may be mentioned, but a caveat must be listed. This is not a complicated principle, and the fact that Storm is arguing against it in both insulting and condescending terms indicates that he has an agenda that is highly POV.

Further, he claims that I have POV here, when I have no stake in this subject. He is a "Heterodox Christian" wanting to redefine "Christianity" to suit his own purposes. I am a non Christian who recognizes POV twisting when I see it, and object -- not as a Christian -- but as a Wikipedia editor who sees this behavior contrary to the NPOV terms Wikipedia has laid out for us to follow.

It's a simple principle: all groups get to self define, with the majority determining the normative meaning, and mutually exclusive groups not being listed as the same thing without a caveat. I would do this for Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Christians -- without bias -- following precisely the same principle. Storm, on the other hand, insists on not using the self definition of the MAJORITY group, while insisting on the self definition of the MINORITY group. Wrong -- all groups must be allowed to self define. ALL of them, in proportion to their notability and verifiability. THAT is NPOV -- and Storm is fighting against it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless my non-response is interpreted as acceptance of this canard you are running, I have supplied multiple definitions with links of Christianity above, all from dictionaries. Conversely, you have supplied no specific references and no links to verify any of your positions. The definitions I have linked explain what Christianity is. The Nicene Creed is not a definition of Christianity and never has been; it is a statement of belief or doctrine. At no point in history has it ever been observed by all Christians; there have always been exceptions. You continue to fail to understand the difference between the doctrine(s) of churches versus a description of a religion that has over 36,000 denominations. The unifying belief within all of these denominations is Jesus Christ, following him, and a belief in scripture. Not surprisingly that is what each of the definitions I linked also used.

Each church self-defines their beliefs, doctrines, and theology, but none speaks for all others. Not one of them has been deemed capable of speaking for every denomination of Christianity. None has been deemed as being the source of Christianity. This is really fundamental stuff; have you by chance heard of the Reformation? In fact, have you ever studied any of the schisms within Christianity; each occurred because no church was recognized as the one and only authority. I reject your logic in its entirely because it is POV. --^StormRider 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AEB (Outdent)

(outdent) Personally, I tend to agree with Stephen above regarding using cladistics as the primary means of differentiation, and then describing the groups "spun out" that way. In effect, basing the content less on "denominations", but rather on the "history of schisms and separations". If we used this mode, the article would probably read something like this:

• Assyrian Church of the East separation
• Nicene Era - producing groups that would become Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic, also serving as basis (time-delayed, of course), for various groups and individuals described as "Arian" later
• Reformation - producing Protestant sects, as well as concurret Baptist/Anabaptist groups
• Restoration era - producing restorationist groups, also indicating that there had been similar groups at various times earlier

That's just a first draft, and not written in stone, but I think that would get around the problem of determining which are major "types", by basically dodging the issue and just describing the differentiations primarily on when they first occurred, rather than by how important they are. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see some benefit in using historical divisions to guide our taxonomy, but it seems to me to have some limitations. First, it would tend to obscure the "Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant" scheme which - while it doesn't in my opinion provide a complete description of Christendom and needs to be expanded - is an easily understood and well known way of categorizing many of the largest Christian churches. Second, once you get past the Protestant Reformation, I think it breaks down. As I've said before, I don't believe the "Restorationist" category is useful analytically or well-supported by reliable sources. There were a number of significant groups originating during the Second Great Awakening, but other than originating during the same time period, they don't share any essential defining characteristics (such as the five solas of Protestantism). Third, we continue to have new Christian groups arising. If we choose an organization that's based on eras, we'll need to come up with eras to cover such things as the Iglesia ni Cristo and Messianic Judaism.

I'd suggest:

• Starting with the big three;
• Subdividing Orthodoxy as necessary to accommodate Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox;
• Subdividing Protestantism as necessary to accommodate major "families" of Protestant churches, such as Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Anabaptist, etc.; and
• Looking for appropriate categories, as needed, to accommodate groups that don't fit into the big three.

One of the primary reasons I make these suggestions is that no one seems to have expressed serious reservations about the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant categories - the real issues seem to center around what else the article should mention, and how those other groups should be categorized. It seems easier to try and resolve those issues without re-thinking the first three categories. EastTN (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, but I think it would be helpful to expand the Oriental Orthodox section when final decisions are made. --^StormRider 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with that. EastTN (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. The three main divisions are clearly the norm.

But I think the subdivisions are going to cause us some trouble. While I think it's OK to discuss differences in the sections about each division, I don't think we should created subsections for each subdivision. Catholics are not worth subdividing (sorry, you little churches almost but not quite part of the Roman church) and Orthodox probably deserves both it's major parts mentioned, but I think as soon as we start subdividing Protestantism we are in trouble. There are just too many divisions.

In this article (which is an overview, let's remember) the section should briefly outline the main common factors of Protestantism, give an idea of the range of differences. We should mention, without listing examples, that there are groups claiming to lie outside the three divisions.

I don't think it's a good idea to start talking about history in the "Groupings" section (except to explain briefly the two big divisions). People will expect the overview article to focus mainly on the current state. There's a History of Christianity for the rest. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the history lessons to a minimum makes sense to me, and I agree that we may not need to subdivide Catholicism. I suspect we probably should divide Orthodoxy, and I definitely think we should subdivide Protestantism. If nothing else, there's another "big three" within Protestantism (Lutheranism, Reformed, and Anglican). I'm indifferent to whether those discussions are organized as subsections or not. My suggestion would be to draft the text - in summary style with links to the appropriate groups - and then see if we end up needing subsections to keep things organized. My guess is that we may not. I also still think we need to have a fourth category to discuss the groups that don't fall into the big three. Right now my preference would be for an "Other" category subdivided between "Trinitarian" - for such things as the Restoration Movement - and "Non-Trinitarian" for, well, non-Trinitarian groups. I'd probably make those two separate subsections, if for no other reason than to highlight the distinction between trinitarian and non-trinitarian theology.

Bottom line, I think we fail to convey the scope of Christianity if we don't provide at least a summary description of the range of groups that fall outside of the realm of the Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches. EastTN (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

TN, how about treating the Anglican differently. Some sources treat them as a middle path between Catholicism and Protestantism. Should we being doing the same thing? There is a subtlety there that may be important for readers and it is certainly the way the Anglican church sees itself. I have not studied this church in any depth so I am out of my depth making an intelligent decision. Do any of you have a deep grasp of these issues to guide us?

I see making a strict limitation to three sections as being seriously detrimental to the article. Limiting to just Protestant without naming the major groups would also invite a continuous barage of editing to include their names. It would be similar to discussing catholicism without mentioning the Catholic Church; it can be done, but with great difficulty and I don't know what would be achieved. How readers would be benefited by not having names of churches. This article is not so long that it needs to be significantly trimmed and excluding the information seems to miss purpose of an encyclopedia. --^StormRider 03:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with listing Anglicanism separately as a "middle way" - I've seen it done that way before, and it does seem to capture something distinctive about the Anglican approach. I also agree that we should name the major groups within Protestantism. Whether each requires a separate subsection is an issue that I don't have a strong opinion about. Basically, I just want something workable that includes the whole array of groups that describe themselves as Christian. EastTN (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if a few more editors voiced their support for one method or another; waiting another week or so would be good. I am not strongly committed to separating Anglicanism, but I have seen it that way by others. It may be adding too much emphasis. Painting with a relatively broad brush stroke for this top level article is appropriate, but not so broadly that readers are not given enough information to understand the breadth of churches within Christianity as a whole. --^StormRider 21:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with separating Anglicanism out from Protestantism, largely because it will open the floodgates to other editors insisting that their group is also outside of the big three. Then we'll be back at too many primary divisions. (I think it's not the majority view either - most writers include Anglicanism in Protestantism.) I suspect that something similar will happen if we subdivide Protestantism - that in itself will invite the aforementioned barrage of editors wanting to not just list their particular group but promote it to be a main subdivision within Protestantism. I can immediately see an argument for Baptists not falling under any of the proposed subdivisions, and Pentecostals might reasonably argue to be separate on the grounds of distinctive theology and of numbers.

I support the big three divisions with no subheaders. It's clear, easily understood, abundantly referenceable and supportable, and is a pattern followed by many writers on the subject. I think in order to also reduce the temptation for people to add subdivisions, we don't subdivide Orthodoxy (although I think it's the one that best supports a subdivision).

Clearly there is scope for more detail. Protestantism is appropriate for the Protestant subdivisions, but there is also Christian denomination, and we might consider an article Groupings in Christianity where we discuss the different ways in which different kinds of Christians might be categorized. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with waiting - it's better to get it right and to develop a real consensus than to rush things. As far as where I am:

1) I still strongly believe we need at least an "Other" category beside the "big three" to accurately reflect the diversity of modern Christianity;

2) I think we should at least mention the primary divisions within Orthodoxy and Protestantism within the text;

3) I don't think it's necessary - at least at this point - to add subsections for each of these subdivisions; and

4) I'm pretty much indifferent about where we put Anglicanism (treating it as Protestant is reasonable and well supported, but treating it as a "middle way" is also well supported and adds some nuance useful to people who really want to dig into the subject).

I fundamentally do not share DJ's twin concerns about about ending up with a) too many primary divisions and b) too many branches of Protestantism. The first can be addressed by having a single "Other" category, perhaps subdivided into Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian. As for the second, the current section on Protestantism already goes beyond the "Protestant big three" of the Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican churches to mention the Anabaptists, Baptists (though they aren't linked, for some reason), Methodists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals and non-denominational churches. I'm convinced we could do a better,more systematic and comprehensive job of covering the various flavors of Protestantism while still keeping the section length quite manageable.

As we work through this, it might also be useful to look at the classification schemes that are being used in other articles, such as List of Christian denominations, Christian denomination and List of Christian denominations by number of members. Presumably the editors of those articles have had to think through some of the same issues. EastTN (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, here's how Pew groups Christians as a whole in their survey research (Religious Composition of the United States), and how they classify Protestants (Classification of Protestant Denominations). There's no magic to it, but it represents another way of thinking about things, and provides some sense of the size of each group (at least within the U.S.). EastTN (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)