Talk:List of Christian denominations/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

WTF?

Why are Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Catholicism branched under Catholicism, while Restorationism is seperate from Protestantism? This is what I thought it was:

Christianity

  • Oriental Orthodoxy
    • Coptic Orthodoxy
    • Syriac Oriental Orthodoxy
    • Eritrian Orthodoxy
    • Ethiopian Orthodoxy
  • Nestorianism
    • Assyrian Church of the East
  • Catholicism
  • Eastern Orthodoxy
    • Byzantine (Constantinople) Orthodoxy
    • Greek Orthodoxy
    • Russian Orthodoxy
    • Serbian Orthodoxy
  • Protestantism
    • Anglicanism
    • Mainline Protestantism
    • Anabaptism
      • Baptist Church
      • Mennonites
      • Amish
    • Restorationism
      • Latter Day-saints
      • Jehovah's Witness
    • Nontrinitarian Protestantism

I think this page really needs an overhaul. 60.231.16.132 (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pentecostals and Presbyterians

If Anglicans and the Society of Friends get their own category apart from Protestants, then why don't Presbyterians and Pentecostals get separate billing. I used to be Pentecostal and now I am Presbyterian. There are little to no similarities. We worship differently, we believe different things about salvation and end times. We have no historical connection. Pentecostals are more like Restorationists. This whole thing where everybody gets to be a Protestant if they are neither Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic has got to stop. Protestants include (very broadly in my opinion) Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, and Baptists.

Then there are Anabaptists, Pietists, and Restorationists. They are not Protestants. Anglicanism considers itself a via-media, they acknowledge a pre-reformation heritage, but the Church of England apart from either Rome or Orthodoxy, is a product of the Reformation. They are more like a via media between Reformed and Lutheran. And Reformed are also catholic, see [reformedcatholicism.com]

--Rclose 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Roman" Catholic not a denomination

Catholicism is not a denomination. It is one of the 3 largest branches of Christianity and isn't divided up at all. It would kind of be like calling protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy a donomination. Denominations are supposed to be groups within a branch of Christianity, like Lutherans, Calvinists, and Baptists under Protestantism.

Orthodox

I deleted about the Syrian church in India from the Eastern Orthodox because it is not Eastern Orthodox, it is Oriental Orthodox (which see).

Shakers are not Quakers

To group the Shakers with the Quakers is a serious error. The two are not related by anything other than that both contain "akers." I'm not sure where Shakers belongs, but I have removed it from the Quaker sub-category. 70.255.31.12 18:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic"

I changed some of the referenced to "Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic" as the term "Roman" is usually used by anti-catholics and considered offensive to eastern Catholics (since it implies that the Latin rite is the only true part of the Catholic church.) If we need a way to distinguish those who use the term "Catholic" who follow the Pope from those who use the term "Catholic" who don't follow the Pope, we could describe them as "churches in communion with Rome" or "churches in communion with the bishop of Rome." I've seen the former more commonly used in Catholic circles.

In ecclesiology, "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite church within the Catholic Church, which is the proper name of the church in comunion with Rome. Small 'c' catholic can refer more broadly to other churches having a catholic character but are not in communion with Rome. Protoclete 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You can not simply drop "Roman" in "Roman Catholic"

Let me explain, the Catholic Church is divided in Patriarchates. One of them is the Roman Patriarchate. The Patriarchates are not subordianted to each other, but they recognise each other as being segments of the same Church. For instance, Antiorchian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem are Patriarchates of Catholic Church, but they are not subordinate to Roma.

Now it should be easy to undestand why it is offensive to call the whole Catholic Church (including the other Partriarchates) as "Roman Catholic Church". But it is also offensive, to make call Catholic only the the Roman Catholic Church. You are excluding legitime Catholic Patriarchates from Catholicism.

Since the Patriaarchates regognise each other as being part of the same Church, the expression "churches in communion with Rome" is very ambigous. A better term to describe what you meant by "churches in communion with Rome" would be "churches under Rome Patriarchate authority".

What should be done about those hanging lists, under Catholicism? should we just collapse them into a single long list? Do they belong together? I don't know anything about most of them. Mkmcconn 06:06, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For sure some of them are not in the communion with Holy See, but they are not of the Protestant tradition. There are for exemple a group of Old-Catholic churches or Polish Christian churches (Mariavite, Polish Catholic). I started the division, but I don't know how to call them :( Slawojarek 11:52, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm wondering if many of them are simply the same Eastern churches listed above, called "Catholic" instead of "Orthodox". Is there an "Ethiopian Catholic", as well as an "Ethiopian Orthodox"? Mkmcconn 15:50, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There are 23 churches in the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic is the largest by far, but most of the rest are exactly counterparts to Orthodox churches. The liturgy and tradition between, say, the Coptic Catholic and Coptic Orthodox is the same; the difference is whether in communion with the bishop of Rome (Catholic) or not (Orthodox). Protoclete 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree so much with you, because ALL the Orthodox (both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) Churches of the world always call themselves Orthodox Catholic, and the Pope of Rome they call Roman Catholic. This has also been adopted by the UN, and, of course, it has always been adopted also by the Roman Catholic themselves. And, also the Anglican Communion defines itself as Catholic, as the Old Catholic Church, who is part of it. ( comment by 195.218.12.74 on 17 March 2007 )

It is false to say that the UN has adopted the "roman" terminology. In fact, "Catholic" is used in preference to "Roman Catholic" by 2450:330 on un.org. It is also false to say that the Orthodox Churches always call themselves "Orthodox Catholic." They certainly consider themselves the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", but refer to themselves as "Orthodox Churches". The Anglican communion may define itself as catholic, but it refers to itself as the "Anglican Communion." There is one body that is commonly called and commonly uses the name "Catholic Church" - it is the one described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. -SynKobiety 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical Free Church

I've added the Evangelical Free Church of America to the Protestant list under "Misc. movement churches". I'm not sure if there is a better place to put them, and perhaps someone who is more familiar with them can make a better decision. They have roots in Scandinavian Lutheranism, pietism, and American revivalism. They have been variously categorized. For example, the 11th edition of Handbook of Denominations places them under "Brethren" churches, which has some merit, but which I personally think is more confusing than helpful. The Encyclopedia of American Religions groups them as Pietist, which is probably historically correct, but to me does not seem to capture the current status of the body. The Polis Denominational Taxonomy lists them as "Evangelical Protestant (Revivalist/Rational)", which we, of course, do not have here. Anyway, if someone comes up with a better solution, please move the Evangelical Free Church. - Rlvaughn 17:43, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


-Looks good to me...the problem with this entire page is that, in America, despite so many splinter groups formed, now there are broad movements that freely cross lines of the old groups. There's a lot of cross pollination (wouldn't you expect that from a beekeeper, eh?) that's gone on. Among evangelicals, shared music, worship styles, para-church groups, shared concerns, etc., have blurred old lines. In the camp meeting areas of the South you can visit a Methodist or Baptist church, and can only tell the difference in worship styles in subtle ways (not to speak of the Free Will Baptists). Folks from the confessing movement within the Presbyterian Church or the confessing movement within the United Methodist Church have more in common with each other than with the liberal elements within the respective churches. It almost seems like there should be a caveat, or boilerplate on this page, to warn people that heritage is not the only factor in what makes a church today, that rigid lines on a chart are not entirely descriptive of the fact... Pollinator 02:56, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-The best positioning for the EFCA, of course, would be with the Evangelical Protestant churches (it is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, after all.) Perhaps another "broad category" of Evangelical would be worth considering? --Tim4christ17 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity

Is Celtic Christianity really a part of Catholicism or is it a part of Orthodoxy? I know that it could be classified as Catholicism in the loose sense, as could most other Christian churches. What I mean is, since it is not a part of the Catholic Communion, is it a church historically related to the Roman Catholic Church? If it isn't, then shouldn't it go under Orthodoxy? Pmadrid 13:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The answer is complicated, and a fair argument could probably be made either way. I think I would argue for it to be included under Orthodoxy, based on the (probably biased) articles found at http://www.orthodoxireland.com/history. Bear in mind that true "Celtic Christianity" has been gone for a while now, just as true Celts have apparently been gone for a while, so it's really a matter of how you interpret history. Wesley 15:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Church of the East

I couldn't find The Church of the East on this page? Is it here? Can somebody help me? Tom 18:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which one -the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Church of the East, the American Church of the East, Syrian Orthodox Church of the East, Orthodox Church of the East, or others. Generally they fall under Nestorian churches. Rmhermen 21:32, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Church of Christ, Scientist

The double-asterisked suggestion it could alternately be categorized as one of the New Thought churches is really not accurate. Notwithstanding some borrowed language by NT, there are pretty strong antitheses between NT and CS. NT is arguably an offshoot of CS by way of disaffected students of Eddy with eclectic influxes of Asian thought and deification of man, but that does not by any stretch harmonize CS to NT. That labelling would be analogous to classifying the People's Temple under the label of mainstream Christianity simply because that's where Jim Jones got his start. It's my plan to pull the comment/note. Chris Rodgers 09:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've remove the Church of Christ, Scientist from the Non-trinitarion list.

  • The second tenet of the church states: "We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or devine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.

I added Church of Christ, Scientist to the Millerites and Comparable groups section of Restorationism because of this statement in the Christian Science manual, that the church was "...designed to commemorate the work and works of our Master, which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing."

To me this group seems the most fitting with the religion and the lists desire to "...reflect the self-understanding of each denomination". Jonamerica 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm reinstating it. CS is positively non-Trinitarian.
The second tenet was Eddy's allusion to key traditional ideas with her own distinct perspective and without equating them. In order for a teaching to be trinitarian (please read the article if you don't understand this), you have to be able to equate any person of the Trinity with God, and CS does not do this with Jesus, and it makes no apology for not doing so. I assume I don't have to provide you with references for that, she states it directly, and also uses traditional non-trinitarian arguments against that teaching. There is no gain in waffling to disguise a fact in the name of false popularity, but lots wrong in it. Chris Rodgers 07:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Red-linked denominations

Is anyone double-checking the actual existence of the red-linked denominations? Someone just added "Calvinistic Churches, USA" but I get no Google hits at all for either "Calvinistic Churches USA" or "Calvinist Churches USA". So it seems there is not really any such group. I haven't deleted it, though, because I think deletion should be consistent. Is anyone else keeping an eye on the red links? --Angr 07:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Apostolic Church

Does anyone know enough about the New Apostolic Church[1] to figure out where to put it in this list? --Angr/comhrá 22:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've not heard of it, and couldn't decide from their website. There is a site here - Doctrine of the New Apostlic Church- that purports to explain their doctrine, though it is probably not exactly objective. - Rlvaughn 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, from de:Neuapostolische Kirche I have gleaned that they broke off from the Catholic Apostolic Church, which seems to be a Church Calling Itself Catholic But Not In Communion With The Roman See, which is where I just put that. But that doesn't mean that's the right place for the NAK (after all, the Methodists broke off from the Anglicans, but are listed under Protestants, not under Anglicans). --Angr/comhrá 22:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism POV problem

I note the following headings

  • 1 Catholicism
    • 1.1 Churches of the Roman Catholic Communion
    • 1.2 Describing themselves as Catholic, but not in full communion with the Roman See

The problem is that just about all Christian denominations would 'describe themselves as Catholic' (with or without capitalisation, which is irrelevant). Certainly I know of no Protestant theologian who would not claim this designation. It is only that the Roman Catholic Church would deny the title to all but those denominations closest to their theology - a POV that many Protestants find objectionable. Thus, these headings are not NPOV.

I'm struggling to think how to neutrally re-categorise this. The subheading 'Catholicism' certainly has to go, and 1.2 could read 'Churches considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be Catholic, but not in ...' - however that seems a little awkward. Any other thoughts? --Doc Glasgow 21:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I think those headings could use some reworking, but unfortunately don't have any suggestions to help toward that end. From my standpoint (Baptist and in the southern USA) though, I don't think that all that many Protestants find it objectionable to not be called "Catholic". I would also suggest that the capitalization issue is not completely irrelevant. Most here using the term for a universal body made up of all Christ's people use "catholic" (as in the Apostles' Creed), leaving the capitalized version to refer to a denominational body. - Rlvaughn 22:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the list under 1.2 really is is churches that have split off from the Roman Catholic church more recently than the Protestant Reformation and Henry VIII. Maybe we could go with something like:

  • 1 Roman Catholicism and its recent offshoots
    • 1.1 Churches of the Roman Catholic Communion
    • 1.2 Churches split from the Roman See since the 19th century [or whatever the earliest split was among churches in this group]

--Angr/comhrá 22:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I could live with that. I guess when I say 'most protestants' I'm refering to theologians and ministers. I'm Presbyterian and our constitution certainly affirms that we are 'Catholic'[[2]] --Doc Glasgow 22:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Doc. I hadn't thought of it, but the capitalization issue may be more of differences of "conventional" spellings between "English English" and "US English" than anything else. I think I you'll rarely see it capitalized here, unless it means a body such as the Roman Catholic Church. If the usage elsewhere includes capitalization, though, that would strengthen the need for changing it. I'm not against changing it anyway. - Rlvaughn 22:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Denominations, not organizations

I don't understand why every country group of congregations is listed here as a "denomination". Christian denominations makes no such universal distinction, but speaks in idealogical terms. Sure, countries under the same denominiational header could reasonably be classified differently, but is there any fundamental idealogical difference between Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and the Presbyterian Church of Australia? Do they describe themselves as belonging to different denominations? For instance, the baptist unions; they baptist organizations, not different sub-denominations.

To be consistent with the logic of the current list, shouldn't *every* country be listed here? But wouldn't that be a ridiculously long list?

This list is confusing and illogical. It should be a list of self-described denominations and lists of organizations should be separate.

Or am I missing some point? ··gracefool |☺ 08:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, these are denominations. The first line of the denomination article is "A denomination in the Christian sense is an identifiable religious body, organization under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine." These are separate organizations with separate rules and leaderships although the theological positions may be nearly identical. Rmhermen 01:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
So they shouldn't be listed here, should they? Or at least, it should be made clear which items in the "list of denominations" actually are denominations, and which aren't. ··gracefool |☺ 06:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They are all denominations --under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine.. They should all be listed. Which ones do you question? Rmhermen 13:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, for my last comment I read your reply wrongly. My reasoning is that a denomination is not "any identifiable religious group", as the denomination article defines. Every single church group could be a denomination by that definition, no? I think denominations should be listed here only if they regard themselves as a denomination - surely that's the only unbiased way to do it. ··gracefool |☺ 09:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that removing the Baptist and Anglican churches from a list of churches in the world would be more biased not less. Rmhermen 12:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
And what about all the groups that say "we're not a denomination, we're just part of the church" or "we're not a denomination, we alone are the One True Church" or other variations on that theme. Surely we shouldn't remove all those groups because they claim they aren't "denominations." I guess if you don't like the working definition of a denomination that's there now, is there at least an alternative definition you'd like to propose? I think the current one will be hard to actually improve upon, but hey, improvements are always welcome. Wesley 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's nearly impossible to come up with a mutually exclusive definition of denomination and organization. I recently added Cooperative Baptist Fellowship to Category:Baptist organizations but Northern Baptist Convention to Category:Baptist denominations, based purely on the fact that the CBF article says the group resists becoming a denomination, and the fact that American Baptist Churches USA (the new name of the NBC) is in the denomination category. But are they really structurally different from each other? Who knows? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Erm, how does distinguishing on the basis of self-regard not work? I will change the article name to "List of Christian churches by country" or similar - eg. "Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand" and "Presbyterian Church of Australia" are NOT different denominations in anyone's book. ··gracefool |☺ 05:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs Catholic

The heading List_of_Christian_denominations#Churches_closely_related_to.2C_but_not_in_full_communion_with.2C_the_Catholic_Church seems nonsensical unless it states more clearly which Catholic Church. As discussed elsewhere the churches associated with the Pope/Roman Catholic Church - maybe it should reference those churches accepting/not accepting the Primacy of the Roman pontiff. Note the Catholic Communion link redirects to the RCC article Paul foord 13:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

where?

hi. i dont know much about Christian denomination classifications, but i have recently created an article on the Indian Shaker Church. i dont know much about this either. what i have read is that this is combination of indigenous, Catholic, and Protestant practices & beliefs. i put it under Protestant since i cant see where else to put it. maybe someone more knowledgeable can put it in a more fitting place. peace – ishwar  (speak) 08:30, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Changing article name

Just to highlight, I will change the article name to "List of Christian churches by country" or similar if no-one objects. Either that, or the list is changed to indicate idealogical denominations, not presumed country organizations. ··gracefool |☺ 06:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I object. It's not a list by country. Many of the denominations listed here have nothing to do with a country, such as Roman Catholic Church or Moravians. Many of the Anglican churches listed cover more than one country: the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, the Church of Ireland, the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, the Church of the Province of West Africa, and the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East are all transnational; even the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the United States of America are transnational since they includes overseas dioceses like the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe and Province II and Province IX of the ECUSA. This list is organized by ideological denominations first, and then grouped into divisions alphabetically. And the various groups within each denomination can have great ideological differences between them, too; just look at Anglican views of homosexuality, for example, to see how very different the ideologies of the ECUSA and the Province of Uganda can be. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, I agree "List of Christian churches by country" would also be inaccurate. But you admit it's not actually a list of denominations, but a list of denominations and subgroups. And besides, there are plenty of subgroups listed with very little if any in the way of idealogical differences. Should it be changed to "List of Christian denominations and subgroups"? Should any effort be made to distinguish between groups that have (self-regarded, of course) significant idealogical differences and those that don't? ··gracefool |☺ 23:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
This list makes no effort to distinguish ideological or theological differences between groups. It merely lists self-organized independent groups, i.e. denominations and denominational equivalents. Rmhermen 00:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Even though there may be separately listed churches that have virtually no ideological differences, it would be way too much work to find out which ones those are, and would open a Pandora's box of non-NPOV with people arguing over whether church A and church B have significantly different ideological views to warrant being separated or whatever. No. The list as it is is NPOV and informative, and the title is accurate. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Didn't you just say that it's not a list of just denominations? So "List of Christian denominations and subgroups" would be better, right? ··gracefool |☺ 12:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
-That probably is too fine a point. Paul foord 12:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I never said it isn't a list of denominations. I don't think we should get into the problem of what's a denomination and what's a subgroup of a denomination. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it just as bad to imply that two groups are different denominations, as it is to imply they are of the same denomination? Effectively, that's what the article is doing at the moment - it implies they're all denominations, which is clearly false. ··gracefool |☺ 13:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I still believe that you are using a different definition of denomination. Could you provide some examples of where you believe that the list contains two groups that we claim are different denominations that are not, in fact, denominations? Or any groups that are sub-groups and not denominations on the list? Rmhermen 13:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There are denominations and families of denominations - so the Churches of Christ in Australia is a denomination in its own right, it belongs in the same family of denominations as the Disciples of Christ - another denomination, I would not see these of being subgroups of some super denomination. Denominations may be national, or transnational. I think the intro to the article covers it. Paul foord 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

To Rmhermen and Paul foord - please see my comments in the previous discussion. Have a look at the examples at Christian denomination - all examples have idealogical differences, not *just* locational differences. Also, if two sub-groups do not consider themselves as belonging to different denominations, who are we to say they are wrong? ··gracefool |☺
Using the specific example of "Churches of Christ in Australia" that you already mentioned, it definitely merits being mentioned separately from the rest of "Church of Christ," just as the article currently has it. It appears to share common roots in the Restoration movement, but it is DEFINITELY distinct in doctrine from "Churches of Christ" in a number of ways, most notably the acceptance of supra-congregational organizations and the ordination of women. So I think that a group that defines itself as a separate denomination should be listed separately.
However, in this same family of "denominations," if you use only "Does the group identify itself as a denomination?" you would have to eliminate "Church of Christ" from that list, because (a) there's no denominational authority or structure and (b) most congregations actively resist the idea of "Church of Christ" as a denomination and make a point of emphasizing themselves as "nondenominational" or even "undenominational." (The few exceptions don't have any kind of central authority, either, but simply concede to referring to the Church of Christ as a denomination more or less on the basis of "If it looks like a duck." They refer to how denominational the group has become despite its official resistance.) Lawikitejana 01:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

validation of this list?

Is it just me or is it time to validate this list and compare it to a NPOV source? There seems to be many groups here. Because of that, it's kinda hard to make sense of the list. The NPOV source I would recommend for this task is the Frank Mead and Samuel Hill's Handbook of Denominations in the United States. This book has short entries on most Christian denominations and some non Christian groups (i.e. LDS, JWs, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam). It's a great resource. It's ISBN 0687069831. - Hoshie | North Carolina flag 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that book might be a good place to start verification, but of course this list is worldwide, not just the United States. But you're not the only one thinking this way; if you look way up at the top of this talk page, you'll see I complained months ago about the number of red links on this page and asked whether anyone is making sure the listed denominations actually exist. Apparently no one is. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I keep this list on my watchlist, but haven't done any work on it in quite a while. I believe I can verify that all of the Baptists on the list do actually exist. Though, knowing what I know now, I would have changed the titles of some of the listings before writing articles for them. But I was new to Wikipedia then and didn't know any better. Some other resources that can be used - (1) for US religions, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, edited by J. Gordon Melton; (2) Religious Congregations & Membership in the United States 2000, by ASARB and Glenmary Research; (3) for Baptists "around the world", Baptists Around the World, edited by Albert W. Wardin, Jr.; (4) for world Christians, World Christian Encyclopedia, edited by David Barrett, et al.; and (5) for world religions of all kinds, Adherents.com. - Rlvaughn 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've also been keeping this on my watchlist had have tried to make useful amendments, as I believe it's a handy resource. What if we just deleted all the red ones? Slackbuie 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Women as theological figures

I have set up the page Women as theological figures: contributions welcome. (See the talk page for further details.)

Jackiespeel 23:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostal

Oneness Pentecostal shoudl be it's own category. It is pentecostalism except that they to not accept the Trinity and have a sandard of Holiness. This should be under Pentecostalism notable are the United Pentecostal Church, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, the Apostolic Assembly of nthe Faith in Christ Jesus, and etc.

Christian mystery religion

I've inserted this new section since " Esoteric Christianity " (early 20th century) regards itself as presenting the Holy "mysteries" spoken by the Christ in Matthew 13:11 and Luke 8:10; and " Spiritism " (mid 19th century) regards itself as the "Consoler" promised by the Christ in the Gospel of John. Both bring to public awareness the themes of 'Reincarnation' (Rebirth) and the 'Law of Karma' (Cause and Effect) in the teachings of the Christ (Bible and reincarnation); however, each one acting in a different spectrum. Also, Esoteric Christianity introduces teachings about future human development, world development toward universal brotherhood and religion change/unification toward the Christ: throughout the next six centuries toward to the Age of Aquarius (age which is regarded as an intermediary preparation to the New Galilee: the "new heavens and a new earth" to come in a future not identified time). Both may be interpreted as being related to "The Promises of the Spirit" mentioned 'twice' (receive and take) by the Christ in the Gospel of John. --194.65.22.226 17:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV

Other Adventists

Is the reason that Other Adventists are under the Sabbath Keeping Christian Churches, one of convienience? Ansell 07:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mormons

Is there a reason the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not include an entry in this listing? Seems kind of unusual to omit such a large Christian organization when so many other tiny or even extinct and non-existent groups are listed.

I returned Mormons - it keeps getting removed. I am not aware that any of the listed denominations are extinct. If you can point any out, they should get some kind of annotation. Why do you think that some of the groups are non-existent? Examples? Rmhermen 22:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Odd that someone would remove Mormons from a list of Christian denominations but not the Unification church. Anyway, the list itself contains a small handful of groups listed as extinct, under Gnosticism and Non-Trinitarians. My comment about groups that are non-existent followed the comments left earlier in the discussion by others, I have not verified the non-existence of any particular group myself.

(Preceding comments unsigned)

Response to Removal
LDS/Mormons Removed.
In the opening paragraph of the page about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it says that the LDS church "views itself as the restoration of original Christianity". Thus, they appear to consider themselves Christian. Here we try to rely on external reliable sources of information. You don't seem to have supplied any documentation for your assertion that the LDS church does not consider itself Christian. The other things that you say (Apostles' creed, remarks about Satan, etc.) were also stated without referencing any reliable source of information. They therefore count for little here. Even if you could prove that the LDS church membership held certain unusual views, that would not necessarily indicate that they cannot be considered Christian for purposes of a Wikipedia encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not about finding the one true religion - it is about providing summary information with a neutral point of view. —Wookipedian 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Jahovah's Witnesses aren't really Christian either because they believe Jesus is the first creation of God but not God, and that he is St. Michael the Archangel.  It doesn't matter if they claim to be christian.  If some Hindu people broke off from Hinduism and called themselves Christian, even if they didn't have Christian beliefs, would we have to include them in this list?  Then why should we include LDS and Jahovah's witnesses in here?
I'd say that to be Christian you need to follow the teachings of Jesus and be monotheistic. Rather than have an outside entity decide this, I'd go by what the religion itself claims. If the religion claims it is monotheistic and claims it follows the teachings of Jesus, I'd say that makes it a Christian denomination. I have no idea whether Mormons claim this or not, but I'd say that is how to decide this question. WilliamKF 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mormons don't claim to be monotheistic, and although Jehovah's witnesses are monotheistic, they don't think Jesus is God. Muslims are monotheistic but believe Jesus is just a prophet and obviously they aren't christian, so I wouldn't consider Jehovah's witnesses Christian either.

The definitions of "Christian" put forward here are so limited as to exclude much of the Christian world. Let's please use the actual definition, which is: 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings. 2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

 Please stop removing the mormons. The mormons follow every rule of christianity, they are indeed christians. PLEASE STOP!!!

Anglicanism is Protestant

Anglicanism is a denomination of Protestantism. Why is it listed separately? I know there's lots of high church "we're actually the real Catholic church" mumbo jumbo, but the 39 Articles are definitively Protestant, and the Church of England obviously considered itself protestant in the 17th and 18th centuries. There are plenty of other Protestant groups which have members who would probably not characterize themselves as Protestant. Why should the Anglican Communion be treated differently from them?

Note that the fact that the Anglican Communion calls itself "catholic" is totally meaningless - all protestant churches do this. A bunch of Anglo-Catholics who want to hijack the actual history of their church (what's that about Catholic King James II persecuting Church of England bishops? Or Catholics being explicitly excluded from the British throne, but Lutheran George of Hanover perfectly acceptable?) don't get to decide this issue. Anglicanism is a Protestant domination which shares many (especially ceremonial) aspects with Catholicism. It's doctrine is entirely protestant in every way that I am aware of, being more or less Calvinistic. john k 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that "catholic" in the sense of the Anglican Communion is different than "Roman Catholic". "catholic" (small "c") is used to mean the group of all Christians, while "Roman Catholic" (or "big c" Catholic) is a "branch" of Christianity (though the history of/etymologies are the same, their acutal meanings and usages are different.) --Tim4christ17 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's also worth noting that Anglo-Catholics/particularly High Church Anglicans like to pretend they don't know this, and that Anglicanism is not Protestant. But any reading of the actual history of the Church of England should be convincing that from Elizabeth's time on, the Church of England was regarded by the outside world and by itself to be a protestant established church. It's an ahistorical modern point of view that Anglicanism is not a branch of protestantism. I don't think even the high church types of the 19th century would have claimed such a thing, and I think it's really only a possible view to hold in the wake of Vatican II, which made Catholicism more like Protestantism. This odd minority POV, essentially held only by a sect within the Anglican communion itself, should not be given prominence in this article, which should just aim for a basic summary. Any understanding of English history in which the Church of England is not considered a protestant church becomes nonsensical. john k 20:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree - The various denominations that make up the Anglican Communion may be a large "branch" of protestantism, but they are well within that fold. The only widely recognized "main branches" of Christianity are Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. The Anglican Communion isn't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, so it must be Protestant.  :P --Tim4christ17 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the non-Chalcedonian branches (Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian) don't fit well into any of those three (they are eastern rite churches, so they outwardly resemble eastern orthodoxy, but doctrinally they are quite different). And Mormonism is distinct enough, I think, to warrant its own category, and is rarely treated as protestant. Other groups, like Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian Universalists, Christian Science, Pentecostalist Oneness, and so forth, clearly emerged out of protestantism and have a protestant pedigree, but no longer follow protestant dogma (all are non-nicene, notably). But Anglicanism suffers from none of these complications. It has usually been considered Protestant, it has generally considered itself Protestant, it is headed by a monarch who is also a member of a Reformed Church (the Church of Scotland). Recent ecumenical notions have drawn closer ties to eastern Orthodoxy and to the schismatic "old catholic church" types, but that is a very recent development. I'm going to move it. john k 23:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The catechism of the Church of England reads "The Church of England is the ancient Church of this land, catholic and refrmed. It proclaims and holds fast the doctrine and ministry of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". No official church document calls the church 'Protestant', but the terms 'Catholic and Reformed' are quite common. — Gareth Hughes 00:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No Church officially calls itself Protestant (or, at least, historically very few have). Lutheran Churches call themselves "Evangelical," and Calvinist churches call themselves "Reformed." "Reformed" is a synonym for "Protestant," at any rate, or at least, the term "Protestant" is inclusive of the term "Reformed." "Protestant" has always been an unofficial, loose term. If it means anything it means "churches that developed out of the Reformation." Said churches clearly include the CoE and its descendant churches. Additionally, as noted before, many protestant churches call themselves "Catholic", as the word appears in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. This does not mean "Roman Catholic," but "universal," and in such a context is not exclusive of "Protestant," as clearly the self-description as "Reformed" indicates. We include "Reformed" as a sub-group of "Protestant" in this list. The Church of England, all of whose governors since James I have also been members of the Reformed Church of Scotland, whose only Catholic governor was thrown out for that very reason, and which has also seen one governor (William III) who was also in communion with the Dutch Reformed Church, and two others (George I and II) who also took communion from German Lutheran churches, was never (after the Elizabeth settlement, at least) seen as anything other than Protestant until the Oxford Movement decided they were really Catholic, before most of their leaders realized that this was nonsense and became real Catholics. The idea that Anglicanism is not Protestant is a significant minority view, which should be discussed in the article on Anglicanism, but it need not trouble this article. john k 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The present reality is that the majority of Anglicans reject the label 'Protestant'. Historically, many more Anglicans than today would have seen themselves as Protestant, but we are dealing with present realities here. If it is considered bias to label my friends of the Assyrian Church of the East as 'Nestorian' because of a historical reality that today is rejected, so it is bias to call Anglicanism Protestant. At what level does forcing categories on people become bullying? — Gareth Hughes 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Er, have you looked at the article? It has a header "Nestorian" for the Assyrian Church of the East. At any rate, can you provide any support for this notion that most Anglicans actively reject the label 'Protestant?' Is the Church of Ireland really not Protestant? In the language used by ordinary people, as opposed to Anglo-Catholic theologians, churches in the Anglican communion have always been understood to be protestant, and this continues to be true today. In the US, we say that every president except John F. Kennedy was protestant. The purpose of the Glorious Revolution and of the Act of Settlement was to secure the Protestant Succession, and that latter act remains in place today for the same purpose. "Protestant" is not a term with a precise meaning. No church explicitly calls itself Protestant (or at least, most do not - evangelical or reformed, a term which you yourself admit is used by the CoE, are much more commonly used). What it means is "Churches arising out of the traditions of the Protestant Reformation," a definition which certainly includes Anglicanism. That there is a dispute is true, but that dispute is a matter of complex theological stuff, and has little to do with the kind of broad categorization which this article is meant to convey. If we changed the "Protestantism" header to "Protestant and Reformed," would that make it acceptable to include Anglicanism? john k 01:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, if Anglicanism is not Protestant because of the self-identification of (some) anglicans as not Protestant, than what of the numerous groups which we do call Protestant denominations which recognize themselves as neither Protestant nor as denominations, but merely as Christian churches. I am referring to explicitly "non-denominational" churches like the Church of Christ, and so forth. The Anglican Communion's acknowledgement of itself as "Reformed" (and, e.g. the former name of the U.S. Episcopal church including "Protestant" in it) seems to me to be at least as compelling evidence for Anglicanism's status as broadly Protestant as anything the Church of Christ does. Both the Church of Christ and the Anglican Communion arose out of the traditions of the Reformation, but both reject the label of "Protestant." And yet we label the former as protestant, but not the latter. This despite the very wide understanding of churches in the Anglican communion as being Protestant - the Church of Ireland is described as the largest protestant church in Ireland, for instance; the american stereotype of a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) usually includes Episcopalianism as the religion of the WAS Protestant, and so forth. Gareth, I await a response. john k 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is truly a list of denominations'ordered by historical and doctrinal relationships' the Anglicanism is clearly a subdivision of Protestantism. I've changed the order of things accordingly. However, if people don't like 'Protestant' as a label, what about calling this section 'Churches of the Reformation? Slackbuie 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Doctrinally, the Church of England maintains (according to its own theory) apostolic succession and the tenents of the Catholic church. The historical contention of the Church of England as a Protestant church is more contentious, and depends on whom you ask. However, it is not "clearly" a subdivision of Protestantism. Homagetocatalonia 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Doctrinally, the Church of Scotland calls itself 'Catholic' (as others have noted about other Protestant churches), but it would be hard to describe it as anything but a Protestant Church. By Protestant, I mean churches which, in their current form, which have their roots in the Reformation, such as the Church of Scotland, the Church of England and the Lutheran churches. Clearly such churches can also claim to be 'catholic' in doctrine (eg by holding to the doctrine of the Trinity) and even in their history before the Reformation. The Act of Settlement of 1701, which was to make 'provision of the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line' requires that the monarch 'shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established' [3]. The authors of that Act seem to have believed that membership of the Church of England made a person Protestant (NB by quoting this Act I don't mean to suggest that I agree with it!). Any UK church which does not accept the authority of the Pope would normally be described as 'Protestant'. I don't think a list like this should try make distinctions along doctrinal lines- it's much more useful to do make the historical links. Slackbuie 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
But this page is primarily designed to highlight doctrinal differences, not historical or political ones. Otherwise this list is just a chronology of schisms, rather than a list highlighting the doctrinal diversity within Christianity. As well, I was under the impression that the religious classification of Protestant as a separate term was used for the German non-conformists and their doctrinal descendants. However, this seems as if this question is cutting right to the purpose of this article - whether it is designed to display historical or doctrinal differences in the various churches. Do you think we should have a vote on the issue? Oh, and does the Church of Scotland maintain apostolic succession? Homagetocatalonia 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not, actually.

Most Anglican Chuches do not consider themselves Protestant. The Thirty-Nine Articles are not doctrine in most Churches and The Roman Catholic Church considers the Anglican Churches to have a "special bond" with Rome. The frequently used phrase is "Catholic but not Roman Catholic, Reformed but Not Protestant." This article should at least note that there is uncertainty about Anglicans being Protestant. 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of Protestants don't like the term 'Protestant' either, but it is a useful historical designations (see above) Anyhow see the note under List of Christian Denominations#Churches claiming to be Catholic having broken communion with Rome. It would make no sense to list Anglicans in this section, it just wouldn't be useful to readers Slackbuie 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone has moved Anglicanism out of 'Churches of the Reformation' (if the Church of England isn't a Cjurch of the Reformation I don't know what is!). I think we need to have a vote or something on this- can someone advise? Slackbuie 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's like saying Eastern Orthodoxes have a special bond with Rome, and thus are Catholic, which they aren't. ANd Roman Catholic is a slightly derogatory term. Among other things, it implies the Catholic church is not universal but just a Roman church, and if someone uses the term, you could be pretty sure they're protestant. And Anglicanism is not really Catholic, since it's pretty much an English church, with cery small numbers of people in the US, Canada, and Europe.

SSPX

The Society of St. Pius X IS in communion with the Catholic Church. It is just a society in the catholic church. They have never been oficially excommunicated. I am removing them from the list. -Robert Emmett McAuliffe III

Yes they were. The archbishop of some archdioscese in the US was given permission by Rome to excommunicate all Society of St Pius X members, along with people of other groups like Free Masons and some liberal group.

Placement of the Society of Friends/Quakers and Anabaptists

The page currently says "Note: Although, historically speaking, the Society of Friends can be listed as a Protestant demonination, this is sometimes contested and many Quakers today consider their faith to be a distinct, non-Protestant form of Christianity."

The same can be said of the entire Anabaptist family in general, adherents often using the term "Third Way" to identify a practice separate from both Catholicism and Protestantism (e.g. http://www.thirdway.com/, a site run by Mennonites, one of the largest Anabaptist subgroups). The Society of Friends is usually considered to be a part of the Anabaptist family. Both the note and the placement of these groups should be adjusted to reflect this.

64.233.251.2 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) John Darrow

Perhaps we should just remove the "Protestant" listing entirely. We could separate out the various groups currently under protestantism, and then note in the text that often times all Christian groups other than Catholicism and the various eastern Churches are often grouped together as "Protestant." john k 01:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Jehovah's Witnesses and Bible Students

Why're JW's and Bible Students so far apart? Bible students don't mainly spring from a Millarite source anymore than JW's do and they're both non-trinitarian.


This section doesn't quite fit with the title

Christian denominations doesn't quit describe what this section is trying to express. It may need a rewrite or it's own page. Maybe something like "groups condemmed as heresy by the catholic church" or something.

Christian Heresies

Heresies condemned in the Roman world

(listed chronologically, by approximate time of emergence)

First Century A.D.

Second Century

Third Century

Fourth Century

Fifth Century

Eighth Century

Later Heresies condemned by the Catholic Church


There is a whole big lack of understanding in this article

There is a big difference between Catholic faith - and all non-Catholic faiths

While in the Catholic church - the faith is the same universally (whether in Kenya or India or California or Netherlands) - in all other denominations, the faith varies from one church building to another!

The "unity of faith" is not present, nor attempted in all non-Catholic faiths.


The entire Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Church) is one universal church. There are no denominations within the Roman Catholic Church.

The article is misleading in listing national churches within the Catholic Church - because these national churches dont exist - and also are not denominations.


There are no deonominations within the Roman Catholic Church. The entire Roman Catholic Church accepts the Pope as the spiritual leader.

There should be no classification within the Roman Catholic Church - that falsely indicates that various denominations like the Old Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church. Kindly remove all that kind of false stuff.

I'm not sure it gives an impression of Catholic disunity at all except within those churches which have broken communion with Rome (whatever that means). You do have a good point though that this list seems to have deteriorated into a list of denominations and all their organisational sub-structures. I mean some groups may have autonomous congregations and others may have well defined hierarchies but that's a bit much to try to represent here. Then the list tries to be a categorisation of types of christian groups but can only half manage it. (non-trinitarian)
I think the list should be simplfied to the main denomination subheadings and then each of those can be a link to a list of organisational/denominational substructures. It'll be much more encyclopedic for readers. I like the geneology style and think it should be stuck to. I'm willing to make the sub-pages unless anyone objects. cairoi 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mormons

The Mormons line is gone again...anything anyone can do about it? 138.47.16.5 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mormons are Christians.... They follow all the rules of "christianess" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.178.182 (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll on the Apostles Creed

I'm hoping that people will put their N's or Y's below to help gague editors' consensus on this point. Do you think that the Apostles' Creed should be used to include or exclude groups from this list of Christian denomination?

N - I can think of several christian groups who may only accept the Christian Greek Scriptures. cairoi 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
N - I can think of several groups that disclaim all creeds (although they do believe in the theology contained in the Apostle's Creed. Rmhermen 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
N - Such a thing would be extremely POV. Wikipedia is not for making up rules on who we include or exclude from our pet religions. It is just about providing information. Wookipedian 16:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
N - duh not neutral --Trödel 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If the general consensus is N then we don't have to discuss it anymore. cairoi 19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This just only be a category.

This list isn't needed, its why we have Categories - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My God - what a mess we have managed to make in 2000 years!

Strongly oppose the list is highly useful as a quick reference Paul foord 12:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should keep this Slackbuie 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of contents

The heading of this article says it is a 'List of Christian denominations (or Denominations self-identified as Christian) ordered by historical and doctrinal relationships'. In that case, shouldn't Orthodoxy come before (Roman) Catholicism)? Slackbuie 22:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees with this comment then I'll change the Order of contents in the next day or two Slackbuie 17:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Took me a wee while over Christmas to get round to it, but I've now re-ordered things, with the Eastern Churches first. Hope this makes sense. Slackbuie 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stone/Campbell Churches

The Stone/Campbell churches are Protestant and should not be filed with the Mormons & JWs. I've moved them. Atterlep 13:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting- external links

A few entries in this list include external links to denominational websites. I should imagine that most of the Wikipedia entries themselves have these links. I think that for the sake of consistency of format we should delete all the external links from this page, but I'd like to know what others think Slackbuie 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making many of the headings into links (e.g Catholicism which will hopefully allow users to find out more quickly about the groupings concerned.

I think this is all a bit of a muddle, though. I think there are 'denominations' listed here which are just congregations. I think it's daft to list all the individual member churches of the big groupings, e.g. Methodists- if we do this we should list each diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. I would make this a very simple list, and put many of the individual national bodies on the page for the denomination. There are also some things which are not, in fact, denominations, eg Catholic Charismatic Renewal. I wonder if various people could simplify the various big groups. I'll make a start with the Reformed churches Slackbuie 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Society of the Excitatus

I added this denomination under Other Protestant. Not sure which category they belong in, their article needs work. Puddytang 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this article worthwhile any more?

I have been working a bit on this article, but I'm frustrated with it. In the introduction it says that 'This is not a complete list, but aims to provide a comprehensible overview of the diversity that exists among denominations of Christianity.' I think it has long since stopped being comprehensible. I suggest that we now list only the main groupings, and the other various denominations can have their own pages with the longer listings there. At the moment, the long lists of for example, Methodist or Unitarian churches in various countries is really confusin. Or, we simply have a carefully maintained 'categories' page. I can't really see how someone wanting to know about the main Christian divisions would find this article, in this form, very helpful. however, I did find the new graphic very good, which is why I have moved it to the top of the page. Slackbuie 12:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed Heading

I changed the wording of the heading "Churches claiming to be the Catholic Church but have broken communion with Rome" to the more broadly encompassing "Churches Claiming to be Catholic Who Are Not In Communion With Rome". When I read the original it seemed to suggest that the listed churches are claiming to be THE catholic church, perhaps to the exclusion of all others. (which is simply not the case) Also, in my opinion, it seemed to imply that these churches were factually not catholic. I think this change makes it clearer that these are simply churches claiming a valid full-membership in the catholic heritage/faith but who are not in communion with Rome. The notion that the Latin Church, or 'Roman Catholic Church', is the only valid incarnation of catholicism is not a universally accepted theological position. Therefore, it might be more honest to simply call these other churches Catholic Churches not in Communion With Rome. Thoughts? Pax! Dcn. Steve (Slohrenz 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

New Graphic - Survey

I have set up a survey on the new graphic at the Schism talk page; I didn't then realize it was being used on other pages. It is probably sensible to centalize discussion - the Survey is here Johnbod 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism again

I understand that asserting that Anglicanism is protestant is a POV. But it is equally a POV to declare that it is not protestant, as the article currently does. Given that the POV that Anglicanism is more or less protestant is one held by many Anglicans and by virtually everyone who is not an Anglican, and that the POV that Anglican is not protestant is one held only by one faction within Anglicanism itself, it striked me that Anglicanism should be listed as a sub-heading of protestantism. I would add the same thing for Restorationism (which is about as protestant as any religious movement possibly can be, except that it doesn't call itself protestant) and probably messianic judaism. Alternately, we could remove "Protestant" as a category entirely, and leave it at the level of the various subheadings of protestantism. I might prefer the latter, as it would probably be less controversial. john k 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Catholic churches not in communion with Rome

"Other Catholic churches not in communion with Rome" heading would be less POV than "Other Churches that claim to be Catholic, But Who Are Not In Communion With Rome" -- Paul foord 09:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removed Christian/Wicca Heading

I have removed Christian/Wicca heading because Wicca is another name for Witchcraft which believes in The Devil so therefore cannot be Christian. Kathleen.wright5 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have my own opinions about "Christian Wicca"; but the above assertion is not only offensively bigoted but simply wrong. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to read the articles you link to. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe in the devil – does that make me a Wiccan? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Chart

The denominations chart has the Protestant churches starting in the 16th century. Lutheranism did for sure but the Wycliffite Lollards, and Hussites who are Protestant pre-date Luther by quite some time. The Hussites led to the Moravians who converted Wesley and led to the Methodists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.100.23 (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) why does the australian anabaptist association of australia and new zealand keep getting mentioned as a denomination it is JUST an association! Most anabaptists I know in australia have nothing to do with the AAANZ. It is made up of various denominations. I am horrified to think others might associate me, a conservative anabaptist, with them.