Talk:Charismatic Adventism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Anachronistic terminology
Stumbled onto this article today. I am concerned that the use of "charismatic" for movements prior to the 20th century is anachronistic. The charismatic renewal movement, as I understand it, occurred in the mid 20th century; prior to that the term charismatic was not used to describe Christian movements with an emphasis on the Holy Spirit .Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, good point. I believe the sources are certainly there for this article to be notable, but some of the terms (e.g. its title) may need discussion. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It might just be possible that "Pentecostal Adventist" is more suitable, but again, my understanding is that the modern terminology dates only to the 20th century. What we are doing then is applying the terminology of a modern movement back into history, which I'm not sure is legitimate. It would be a bit like calling the Montanists a "charismatic" movement. Perhaps they should simply be described as "ecstatic Adventists" or Adventists who practised religious ecstasy in their worship. Or you might just possibly get away with a term like "proto-charismatic".
My suggestion on this is that the instances of the word "charismatic" in this article be replaced with "ecstatic", with an explanation that ecstatic worship in early Adventism resembles the worship of modern charismatics/Pentecostals. Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- We need to look at what the sources use. They often speak of "charismatic experiences/phenomena", "manifestations of the Holy Spirit", etc. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Another comment on terminology: Some Adventists
- "Some Adventists, such as Jon Paulien, speculate that the charismatic movement could be such a unifying force. This is rejected by other Adventists, including those with charismatic leanings."
I know the above was written with good intent, but it also sounds a bit vague to me. When you consider that the membership of the Adventist church is in the millions of people, you could say "some Adventists" <fill in the blank here> and "other Adventists" <fill in the blank here>. It only takes 1 person on each side to be able to say "some" and "other". Yet for it not to be trivia, "some" should mean "some significant percentage". Is there a way to qualify this better?
Not trying to pick on this article as I've noticed other Adventist-related articles suffer the same problem. Here's a quote from the Seventh-day Adventist article.
- "Some Adventists gather for Friday evening worship to welcome in the Sabbath, a practice often known as Vespers."
and one from Progressive Adventists
- "...progressive Adventism has a stronger presence in some places..."
and one from my forthcoming article Blue Eyed Adventists"
- "Some Adventists have blue eyes while other Adventists have brown eyes."
Well maybe that sarcasm was over the top, but Adventism is comprised of such diverse people worldwide you can say "some" about most anything and when you do, it means most nothing. Best wishes. Sdenny123 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your point is fair, and the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words describes what you mention. The first and third examples do have specific examples, as well as being a little weasely - specifically Jon Paulien is mentioned in the first, and West Coast vs. East Coast in the third. Please improve the statements if you can. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)