Template talk:Christian denominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Template This article has been rated as Template-class on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] On Adding Oneness Pentecostalism

Hello! Well some of you might have noticed that I added the Oneness Pentecostal movement into the template. I know that under the Pentecostal page this may be somewhat informed of but I do not believe it is fair. The Pentecostal page is more directed to inform of Trinitarian Pentecostalism (which is fine and all) but it does not cover Oneness Pentecostalism to the same level. These two movements are very different if you have read and taken notice both of doctrine and practices. Furthermore Oneness Pentecostalism is not just one denomination there are various denominations who adhere to this theology and are part of it, and that have millions of adherents all throughout the world. I know some of you may not wish to label us 'Orthodox' or even 'Christian' but we do rely on the Bible, solely, for our doctrines. I'll be happy to respond and give reasons, and I'm open to dialogue, but do take in notice that there are movements in the Template that are much smaller than us and much more 'contreversial' LOL.

Cheers!

[edit] Restorationism, Nontrinitarism, Protestantism

(1) Restorationism is a movement that arose in the early 1800s, called by some a protest against Protestantism, but it never left Protestantism—only sought to take it further and gave rise to particular groups – and none of these groups are in the Restorationism Section.

(2) What was in that section was groups that rejected the Nicene and other Ecumenical creeds. If they have a section to there own they should be not label by a movement to which they were not those primary referenced by such a name. They just adopted it much tter.

(3) No matter what you call them — they do arise from Western Christianity and should be there or as I have done under Protestantism

(4) A whole lot of Protestant groups have been added so I am creating Protestant Christianity --Carlaude (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protestants and other Western Christians

Who is one and who decides? Most Anglicans do not see themselves as protesants but rather as a Via Media between Roman Catholicism and Protestants. The term protestant is offensive to many Anglo Catholic Anglicans. As for the origin and classification of the Baptists, you are going to end up in a huge mess if you try to force that label on them. I have seen it happen here at WP before. These are just two examples. Why is the current header unacceptable to you? -- SECisek (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SECisek's concerns here. Tb (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No one likes being "other."
The tag "Protestants and other Western Christians" is too long.
I have never met a baptist who objected to being call Protestants and I have attended baptist church for 16 years.
I know some of (the more centralized) Anglicans object, but even the Anglicans church admits on its US web site that:
  • Other Christians consider them Protestants.
  • Even the Anglican church is "ambivalent" on being called Protestant.
Please leave as protestant or propose a compromise. --Carlaude (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go read Baptist#Viewpoint: Baptist perpetuity. You will find that there are many vocal Baptists here at Wikipedia who do not "know" that they are protestant and cannot be made to believe that they are. -- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the idea of Baptist perpetuity-- and someone must think it is notable-- I have just never meet anyone to express that opinion to me. Not everything that is in Wikipedia is really notable.--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have heard certainly heard it expressed. Tb (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Western Christianity link needs to be there to compliment the Eastern Christianity link above it. You cited your personal knowledge of Baptists. As for being "Other", I'll cite a personal example. Whenever I am faced with a form that asks if I am Roman Catholic or Protestant, I check other everytime. As an Anglican I am neither of those things and my Church is seldom listed inspite of the fact there are over 73 million of us.

As for a compromise, this IS the compromise that has been fleshed out in battle after battle here at wikipedia:

  • Eastern Christian (Church of the East, Oriental, and Eastern Orthodox)
  • Roman Catholic (Latin & Eastern)
  • Protestant
  • Anglican
  • Anabaptist
  • Restorationist-- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is too long for the purpose. The template until about a week ago only had half this many.
  • By the way scholars do not even categorize Baptists as among the Anabaptist groups, so it seems you are going from one label for them to worse label.
  • I have not seen this system exact system anywhere so it seems problematic to characterize it as "fleshed out in battle after battle"--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See Image:ChristianityBranches.svg. The fight that went in to the design of that image was fierce and left no one satisfied. That said, let us not reopen the battle. This is not a paper encyclopedia and the claim that the title is "too long" doesn't cut it here. What is the objection to the compromises that exist? -- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that Image:ChristianityBranches.svg is poorly done. Let's not follow it. The point is it is a navigational box, not an article. It is to be short even if this is not a paper encyclopedia. --Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm an Anglican, and I'm not a Protestant. I do think that there should be some label which fits me. I'm ok with "Other Western Christians" but not with just "Protestant". Tb (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This just begs the question. What makes you "not a Protestant"? Note: "Protestantism encompasses the forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with the doctrines of the Reformation."--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a Protestant because I disagree with most of the doctrines which characterize the Protestant reformation. What seems to be a problem here is that you are assuming that you can re-order other people's self-understanding to comport with your expectations, thus running roughshod over both Baptists and Anglicans who, for nearly opposite reasons, object to the label "Protestant" to describe their own beliefs and practices. The world is a complex place, religious categorization and labelling particularly, and Wikipedia has often managed to find stable compromises which you seem to want to disturb here out of a desire simply to make things match your preconceptions better. Indeed, the link from the website of TEC which you already posted, if you would have read it carefully, would express exactly the point: many Anglicans do not wish to be labelled Protestant, and it's really not up to you to tell them you understand their religion better than they do. Tb (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, go and remove the section Baptist#Viewpoint: Baptist perpetuity from the Baptist article with the edit summary "Not a notable opinion"...count to ten and get ready to duck. I completely agree that they are protestants, but I have stopped trying to convince anyone here that they are. They can say they are muslims and - if they can find a real citation to back the claim - there isn't much we can do about it other than try to allow for it in the most reasonable way possible. What was pointed out by Tb is correct. It is not our place to tell them they are protestants any more than it is your place to ask me how, as an Anglican, I am not one.

I agree that the full system in the graphic above is too large for the template, hence Eastern, Roman, and Western. I would be fine with putting the Restorationists in with other Western which you seem to have been fine with, judging from the discussions above. The compromise WAS fleshed out in "battle after battle" and some of it is here and some more is here, but it can be painful reading. The second link shows some of the fight that went into this very template, as well. You still have not made a good case against the template as is. -- SECisek (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

A: How about:

  • Eastern Christian
  • Western Liturgical
  • Nonliturgical--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

B: How about all major groups under the same collapsible field.--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is worse than all! Where will you put the Presbyterians and the Lutherans? Just as you cannot call all Anglicans Protestant, so you have to deal with the reality that some Presbyterians are liturgical (or call themselves that) and some Lutherans, even more surprising perhaps, reject the term "liturgical." I can't figure out what you object to with the page exactly as it is now. It's a footer template, so size is really not a concern. I'm not all that sure I understand why we need such a footer in the first place, but I don't object to it. Certainly however, the rule here as always should apply: it is no excuse for incorrect information in wikipedia that it's too much trouble or space to have the correct information.
However, I would most prefer the layout in List of Christian denominations, which is the most substantial attempt to address this problem, and which has a rough consensus now (finally!) for its shape. But I'm ok with this template exactly as it is now. Tb (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Tb above. -- SECisek (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of this template

It seems that the primary point of this template is to be embedded in Template:Christianity which is itself likely to get phased out soon, to be replace with the portal link at the top of pages, and Template:Christianityfooter at the bottom of pages. The current strategy for this template, to use collapsible tables and embed within Template:Christianity is unlikely to ever produce attractive results. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe you can't figure out what you object to with the page exactly as it is now because the page is not a footer. Why did you even edit it if you did not read the output message?
  • We would not want to phase out this template which is better than any footer or portal link could be. Certainly this is not the time to kill the whole template. What in the world is attractive about it other than the tag "Protestants and other Western Christians"?
  • So why ignore "B: All major groups under the same collapsible field"?--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible tables just insert this white space, and mess up the clean lines already present in Template:Christianity. It seems to me that there are several appropriate strategies. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where? How? Do you looked at Template:Christian denominations within Template:Christianity? Do all navigational boxes do this on your browser or just this one? --Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying any of these will work for you? What would be "an attractive way of dealing with denominations" --Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The first of this is (IMO) a good idea, but it's a long-term project, and the same questions will come up in Template:Christianityfooter anyhow. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now if these are in a footer then you will have lots of white space.--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The second does have some possibilities. I understand the interest in using collapsible tables here, but I think the result is currently quite ugly. If someone expert in wikipedia typesetting made something pretty, it would be a different story. That leaves the third. There is already a link to Christian denomination in Template:Christianity. Why exactly is that not sufficient? Tb (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because denominations are a major topic that people want to navigate to! Why exactly is "B: All major groups under the same collapsible field" not not sufficient?--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that the template IS in fact being phased out in favor of the footer. See here. This process began last fall and continues. Will it be phased out completely? Maybe not, but we have been reducing the number of articles for months due to the redundant nature of the box since the creation of the tidy, neat footer. -- SECisek (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oneness Pentecostalism...again...

Hello!

I was the first user to ever add OP as Apostolic in an earlier version of this template. Then when the template was changed the OP was taken off from the template without any reason given. I have again inserted Apostolic into this template, but other users have been quick to revert my changes by labeling my changes as "not conforming to NPOV" and to promoting my church or "preaching". I do not understand these accusations as all OP's mostly refer to themselves as Apostolic...OP is a more technical name if you will and most often is the POV inspired way of Trinitarians to label Apostolics. Furthermore OP really does belong under Western Christianity since we are an offshoot of Pentecostalism. We did not just come out of the blue or under a rock, we are the product of a faction in the early Pentecostal movement, it's only fair. Our doctrine shares many similarities to Western Christianity and it's development is much more linked to W. Christianity (Sola Scriptura, Arminianism, Pre-Tribulation Rapture, etc.) As such I move that the changes be reverted back to the original way I had it. Before I put OP under W. Christianity, and it was never removed, why remove it now? ApostolicMOP (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Furthermore, all the groups listed in the template use the names that they denominate themselves with. We denominate primarily with "Apostolic". You go to countries like Mexico, and they'll look at you weird if you call Apostolics there "OP's", I don't even know what OP translates into Spanish...they will automatically recognize the label "Apostolic" though. ApostolicMOP (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that this is a template, which needs to be clear right away. "Apostolic", without any further qualifications, is confusing, especially to most readers. Moreover, moving just this one unitarian group makes no sense; the consensus has been to list unitarians separately, and if you want to change that consensus, it needs to be explained in terms of clarity over all. This template is really just a very compressed version of List of Christian denominations. Tb (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As one friend of mine told me...Oneness Pentecostalism sounds like some weird Eastern mystic religion. Methodism, Lutheranism, and all the other Christian groups could also be confusing...that's why you click on the link to find out what all the fuss is about. Furthermore we are not Unitarians...Unitarians say that Jesus is not God, OP's believe that Jesus is God. Here's the problem with us being classified as Nontrinitarians:

1. LDS - Believes Jesus became a God 2. JW's - Believe that Jesus wasn't God 3. Unitarians - Same as above 4. Christadelphians - Same as above

OP's believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are God just like all Christians, they just reject that these are three distinct persons. Some of the early OP pioneers even described God's "threeness" "trinity" "triunity". 71.129.32.117 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1. of, JW's believe Jesus is a God-- not that Jesus wasn't God
2. All these groups are all very different in theology. Puting them together (or leaving out some un-notible ones) are the only good options.
3. Oneness Pentecostals are Nontrinitarians -- and they will tell you so.
4. If your view is that they are "not that different" then they do not need a separate listing at all-- they can be found by following the Pentecostalism link.--Carlaude (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The Oneness folks are non-trinitarian; that's not in dispute, and that's why this is the label used in the template. Tb (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Catholic not part of Independent Catholic

Quote: "Independent Catholic Churches are Christian denominations ... but are not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Old Catholic Churches under the Archbishop of Utrecht or the Anglican Communion." --Carlaude (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism

Once again--sorry--I object to the inclusion of "Anglican" under "Protestant". The Eastern/Western division made good sense to me, but if that's replaced with a Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox distinction, then we should follow the usage of List of Christian denominations which has achieved broad consensus. Tb (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I don't object to listing "Anglican" under both here (though I would object over on List of Christian denominations because it would lead to chaos there). But I didn't want to make such a controversial change. Tb (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think listing it one place or the other here is best.--Carlaude (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-denominational Christianity

Perhaps a link to "Non-denominational Christianity" has no place in the denomination template, but I still think it is important to mention such. I'd also like to point out that "Evangelicalism" technically isn't a denomination at all.

Also, Anglicanism should not be under Catholicism, and why is there no link to Roman Catholicism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinWellbelove (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RC is there, it's "Western Rite Catholicism". Tb (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry missed that, it was last. Still disagree with Anglicanism under Catholicism. --AustinWellbelove (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Evangelicalism technically isn't a denomination (neither technically is Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, nor Methodist-- they are denominational families) but some denominations do use "Evangelical" in their name, such as the Evangelical Free Church of America. --Carlaude (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, but in the case of Evangelical Free Church of America, but i would argue that such churches are technically without "denomination" ie. free-churches. --AustinWellbelove (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)