Talk:Schism (religion)

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.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Contents

[edit] Move?

copied from Talk:Schism:

Good idea to create a disambiguation page. Do you think it would be less surprising to readers to move the original article back here, and to make this Schism (disambiguation)? Will anyone dispute that Schism (religion) is the predominant usage of the word? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard any response in a week. Shall we go ahead and move Schism (religion) back here, as it will probably make things easier for readers? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds a good idea. Note that I updated a lot of articles to change schism to schism (religion). --Michael C. Price talk 11:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. That is why I noticed the new page. It looks like you fixed about 80 links, and there about 200 that still link to Schism that will also need to be checked. If we do a move, then we get an automatic redirect, but as well as fixing the double redirects, there will still be a lot of work to do on those pages that linked to Schism, as they will redirect to the proposed Schism (disambiguation). Is there a tool or a bot that can help us? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

continue this conversation at Talk:Schism

[edit] Rastafari schism?

Schism in 1966 was removed as it seems to be unsourced. I found this with Google about a so-called schism between the Rasta Christians and other Rastas - http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/archive1/config.pl?read=48591 --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orhodox church

What about Orthodox Christian schizms? To name the few: the Starovery ru:Староверы, the "foreign" Orthodox church (ru:Русская православная церковь за рубежом) vs. the "ex-communist" Orthodox church (the official one, but they recently declared a planned reunion with the "foreign" church, AFAIK) vs. the "underground" Russian Orthodox church (ru:Катакомбная церковь), the Russian Orthodox Church ru:Русская православная церковь vs. the regional churches (f.e. the Ukranian Orthodox church -- ru:Украинская автокефальная православная церковь), the relation of any of those to the Greek Orthodox Church (ru:Константинопольская православная церковь). Argh, there are so many of them: ru:Категория:Православные церкви!

Also it may be less wise to look at Category:Eastern_Orthodox_churches -- there the churches as buildings are mixed up with churches as institutions. And it's about instititions here. --84.59.20.181 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC) / ru:User:Oal

??? The criteria is simple if a large group of the establish church breaks away tomorrow and their general tenets remain intact its a schism, BUT only if both parties have agreed it's a schism because they at one time were part of one another. If a leader or leaders comes along starts a cult and then claims they are the truest of the religion they are highjacking, well that is heresy. The choice is critical. LoveMonkey 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

[edit] Survey on the graphic

The "old" graphic:

The historical development of major church branches from their roots.
The historical development of major church branches from their roots.

The "new" graphic:

The historical development of major church branches from their roots.
The historical development of major church branches from their roots.
Add  # '''Support'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an brief explanation for your recommendation, with longer comments in the "Discussion" section.

[edit] Survey - in support of the old graphic

  1. Support. This is better than the new graphic but not the best graphic. Cheers Wassupwestcoast 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. It is a more accurate, less cumbersome, and less potentially misleading graphic than the new (see my comments below). Fishhead64 04:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. The new graphic omits Restorationism altogether, a possible POV violation. Bytebear 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. The impression of the new graphic is of a grand, glorious Roman Church which needling little schismatics broke off of. Even if it is accurate according to current populations, it anachronistically projects those trends into the past. In the first millennium, Christianity in the East was much more populous than in the West. Additionally, modern Pentecostalism is one of the fastest growing branches of Christianity, accounting probably for around 150 million members. And there are certainly not a comparable number of Nestorians as there are, for instance, Lutherans, though this graphic gives that impression. 71.241.79.69 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in support of the new graphic

The new graphic has changed. 155.104.37.17 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

? It looks the same to me - or is there another version elsewhere? Johnbod 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It has changed, but in my opinion for the worse; and the wording is also worse than as I remember it. Lima 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I see - previous visitors may need to refresh their browser, or their machine will use the old version it has remembered. The new one has trumpet-like shapes. Johnbod 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest "new graphic" no longer has current proportions extending to the past, no longer explicitly labels Anglicans as "protestant", refers to restorationists, and doesn't have the year 33 date. Comments??? --71.245.167.64 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the trumpet broadening at the end of the lines has no meaning. The right-hand extremity may be meant to indicate, vaguely perhaps, present-day proportions, but a pie chart would do that better. More important, the broadening gives the impression, for instance, that the (Roman) Catholic Church was not even temporarily diminished by the sixteenth-century Protestant revolt but continued to grow undisturbed and almost immediately accelerated its growth out of all proportion to its past. I also think it is a mistake to put so many individual denominations in the graphic. It is impossible to indicate all of them, so it is better to give just a few broad classifications. This would also avoid the problem of the problematic lineage of the individual groups represented in the graphic. I do not know enough to express a judgement on the idea that Restorationism and Pentecostalism are offshoots of Methodism alone, but I suspect that some (many?) would not see it in that way. Lima 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur fully with Lima's views. I don't see why the author considers it important to try to show relative sizes on this chart, which is intended to show a timeline and sources of division. As I said previously, a separate graph such as a line chart or a pie chart would be better suited to plot the relative proportions over time - although I still think it would be difficult absent consistent statistics and changes in population. I also agree that there are two many Protestant denominations shown. I think it would be better to indicate Anglicanism emerging from between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and Protestantism having three branches emerge from it: Anabaptism, Non-trinitarianism, and Restorationism, since these movements reflect significant reinterpretations. Fishhead64 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • Neither graphic is ideal. The new one clearly gives the RCC a ludicrously over-thick branch; the old one has the Protestant branch thicker than the Catholic one it leaves. The new one handles Eastern Rite Catholicism and the Protestant branching better. It omits the dotted line for Restorationism. I'm tempted to say we should take the best points of each, and have ALL lines of equal thickness. Johnbod 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that neither graphic is ideal. The new graphic with its attemp at proportional line thickness is a mistake. Not only must the line thickness vary over time but it obscures the point of the graphic - to illustrate schism. Break away groups are often very small but also very important. I disagree with user Johnbod in that the new graphic also does a poor job with the Protestants. The old graphic got it more or less right. All in all, I'd keep the old graphic but make all lines the same thickness. Cheers. Wassupwestcoast 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The RCC branch currently contains slightly over half of the total number of Christians. A depiction of that shouldn't be seen as ludicrous. The line thicknesses could be refined, ideally varying over time. Could you be more specific about what is "better" or "right" about the graphics? 71.245.167.64 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Although the old graphic had its problems, the new one is more problematic. My objections are fourfold.
  1. It misleadingly depicts Anglicanism as a branch of Protestantism. Many, if not most Anglicans consider their tradition to be a via media between Catholic and Protestant, thus forming a distinct branch.
  2. The attempt to subdivide Protestantism is inadvisable. Where are the Quakers? The Unitarians? Are the Mennonites to be considered "Baptist"? I think showing Anabaptists and Restorationists as an offshoot of Protestantism is a sufficient branching.
  3. Using different sizes to depict the branches obscures the purpose of the chart, which is to depict how Christianity subdivides into major branches. The depiction has the unfortunate corollary of making Roman Catholicism appear in continuity with early Christianity. Obviously, all the major branches consider themselves in continuity with the primitive church - division is usually predicated on the grounds of articulating a more authentically ancient faith.
  4. Christianity was not founded in 33 CE. The earliest attestation of the term "Christian" doesn't appear until some one hundred years after the crucifixion, whenever that was.

My suggestions are that the old graphic be used, with the provisio that the irrelevant reference to the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon be removed, Anglicanism be shown as a distinct branch, and Anabaptism (like Restorationism) be shown to branch from Protestantism. Fishhead64 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. Anglicans are considered to be protestant. The word "protestant" is even part of the formal name of the primary Anglican church in the United States. The Church of Ireland missionaries say,'As an Anglican Evangelical Mission Society, we are a Protestant and Reformed Agency'. The British monarch swears an oath to maintain "the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". The Canadian government classifies Anglicans as Protestant. The "via media" POV does not need to be injected into every reference to Anglicanism.
  2. The title of the graphic is "Major Branches within Christianity." Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are each as numerous as the Anglicans, and well outnumber Anabaptists and Restorationists.
  3. The sizes of the branches are certainly relevant to a description of how Christianity subdivides. The grey depiction of the early Christianity is easily distinguished from and is not co-linear with the red line, clearly indicating a discontinuity.
  4. Both graphics refer to the original church as "early Christianity." What should it be called?

Lines for Anabaptist and Restorationist churches can be added to those of the other, larger branches. 71.245.167.64 06:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I am sorry, I must disagree with much of Fishhead's remark. Christians were recognized as a separate group within a few years of the Crucifixion, whenever that was (see Acts 11:26). The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon are highly relevant, since the divisions among Christians that then occurred were based precisely on acceptance or rejection of their teachings. I agree that it is inadvisable to attempt and impossible to execute a proper diagram of the "Protestant and similar" groups that consider themselves part of Christianity; if an attempt is made, it should be put in a separate diagram. I agree with the earlier remark that the dotted line for Restorationism is out of place: don't all Protestant denominations (yes, Anglicanism too) claim to be a return to the earliest form of Christianity, rejecting what they see as later deviations? Protestantism Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Anabaptism, Anglicanism, etc., even LDSism, Unitarianism, JWism etc., surely all arose as separate entities either directly or indirectly from the sixteenth-century Western religious division. In my poor opinion, the only breaks worth putting in the diagram are:
431 (Council of Ephesus): mainstream/"Nestorianism"
451 (Council of Chalcedon): mainstream/Oriental Orthodoxy
11th century (East-West Schism): Eastern mainstream/Western mainstream
16th century (Western religious fragmentation): Western mainstream/Protestantism and similar Lima 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Both users Fishhead64 and Lima make good points. I noticed too that neither schematic has made room for Unitarians and Anti-trinitarians - not to mention Quakers and Shakers - as earlier mentioned. Stopping at a giant Western Religious Fragmentation branch might make the schematic too course. If this were adopted as well as user 71.245.167.64's population proportionality fixation, we would end up at the 21st C with two thick lines (c. 45% Catholic and c.45% Western Religious Fragmentation) and a thin line (a c. 10% Eastern line) and really what is the point of that. As for lumping - on one extreme - Anti-trinitarian and - on the other extreme - Anglicanism into a giant Protestant set, one ends up with a very ill defined set. By this definition of Protestantism, the only difference in doctrine and practices of the Protestants and the Catholic Church would be the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Anglicans alone have almost no identifiable difference - especially since Vatican II. Take out the Anglicans and Anti-trinitarians and one ends up with - more or less - Protestants who are defined by the principles of the Reformation. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose there are better sources for membership information, but the only one I can consult here is this Internet one's account of the 1995 situation. It puts Catholics at 50.21% of all Christians, Protestants at 20.53%, Orthodox at 11.30%, Anglicans at 3.66%, and "Other Christians" at 14.29%. Wassupwestcoast believes that the groups that have arisen from Western fragmentation form a higher portion than what this site gives. On the other hand, 71.245.167.64's estimate of the size relationship between Anglicans and certain other Western-fragmentation groups may well be exact. I do not know who exactly are the "Other Christians" of the Internet site's classification. I suppose they include groups whose Christianity is widely regarded as doubtful. Is it perhaps possible that they also include Oriental Orthodox?
Immediately below these statistics, the same source gives a list of "Major Denominational Families of Christianity", with higher membership estimates, presumably referring to a date later than 1995.
Yes, I know that this comment is not very enlightening for those who know better. But I am confident that their reactions will be enlightening for me. Lima 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Lima. My proportions were very rough. That is why I prefaced it with c.: i.e. circa. And, religious statistics are very muddy. The Church of England in census data can claim something like 25 million but a survey of church attendance is but a fraction. The Catholic Church data is not much better, for example in Ireland and Quebec. So, I'm painting with a broad brush. And as I pointed out earlier, the changes over time is another problem. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The main problem with the "thickness" of the new graphic is that the main/RCC branch remains unaltered in thickness from year 0 (or 33) to the present. Neither the Great Schism nor the Reformation reduce it in size at all, whilst the branches are shown as far thinner. Trying to adjust it, even crudely, for the relative proportions of Christians at the major schism points, never mind the growth in total numbers of Christians, is I think quite hopeless, so all lines should be the same size. Johnbod 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A valid point, I think. In fact, if the width of the lines were to reflect the proportion of Christians in each group, logic would have each line vary with time. The Eastern branches, all of them, would grow thinner from the time of the Moslem conquest. Others would grow thicker at times of intensification of missionary activity whether or not associated with colonial expansion. I doubt if any of us could do that job properly. To have the line reflect changes in absolute figures ("the growth in total numbers of Christians") would be even more difficult. Lima 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Responding to various points, first from 71.245.167.64:
  1. The issue of Anglicanism's self-identity has been done to death in many talk pages of Wikipedia. I'd invite the editor to check out the articles I cited wherein in the "Reformed Catholic" character of Anglicanism is referenced, along with Catholicism, Catholic, and One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which 71.245.167.64 him/herself edited. I am not advancing a novel or minority view - this is mainstream Anglican doctrine. For your Protestant Episcopal Church in the US, I see you a Holy Catholic Church of Japan. The character is one of a via media, which if it is a POV, is a self-identifying one for Anglicans.
  2. What constitutes a major branch? How are, say, Methodists different in a substantial way from Lutherans, or Pentecostals from Baptists? It raises an interesting question of what constitutes a branch. Perhaps List of Christian denominations would be instructive in this regard.
  3. Many have already pointed out the limitations and difficulties in graphing relative size, and again I ask: why bother? What's the point of that exercise? If one wants to graph the relative sizes of the branches separately, either as they are now or through time, that would be a useful addition to the articles in question, but I can't see the point of trying to adapt this schematic along those lines, given the difficulties cited.
  4. (In response also to Lima) I agree that Christianity was viewed as a separate movement from Judaism, probably around or shortly after the time of Paul - my argument was with the use of the word. "Christian" (Acts 11:26) could mean a movement within Judaism, or a separate one - no one knows when followers first started using it as a self-designation in distinction from Judaism - that use (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't attested until the writings of Eusebius. My concern isn't with the term "Early Christianity" - it's with trying to fix a date of when Christianity began. Fishhead64 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of "major branches" - Protestantism seems to divide itself along four fairly definitive lines:

  1. Mainline Protestants (those who trace their lineage to Luther, Calvin, or Anglicanism, such as Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists), distinguished from churches of the Catholic tradition through their failure to adhere strictly to the threefold order of ministry derived through Apostolic Succession.
  2. Anabaptists (such as Baptists, Pentecostals, and Mennonites) who eschew infant baptism and - to one extent or another - see baptism as aligned with a demonstration of the gifts of the spirit.
  3. Nontrinitarian movements, such as Universalists, Unitarians, and some Quakers.
  4. Restorationists - such as Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists.

There are other minority groups who don't easily fit these categorizations (Messianic Judaism, Christian Scientists), but I think this accurately reflects the main subdivisions. My own opinion, FWIW, is that subdividing Protestantism gets into tricky areas of self-identity, and the term "Protestant" is probably sufficient, without further subdivision - but I offer this for the consideration of other editors. Fishhead64 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All the above editors have good points. I wonder if we haven't got side-tracked. The article title is Schism(religion) and the purpose of the schematic drawing is to illustrate schism. The question of branches, denominations, relative proportion of each is beside the point when the topic is schism. Schism is to religion as revolution/secession is to the state. The first definition of the Oxford English Dictionary has it as a division between strongly opposed parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief. The point is that schism is not a natural organic evolutionary process but a rupture. Not all branching and denominational creation is a result of schism. And just as the self-empowerment movement would have us believe, one person can make a difference: thus, numerically small schismatics are important. Anyway, I think the graph should try to illustrate the concept of schism from day one to today. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
How about two charts: one diachronic, with lines of equal thickness (Graphic 1 gives, for some obscure reason, greater thickness to the Protestantism group line than to any other) and without the dotted line; the other a pie chart showing approximate present proportions between the groups?
Wassupwestcoast uses "schism" in its generic sense. But this is an article on schism in relation to religion, especially the Christian religion, and most Christians -- certainly Catholics (Code of Canon Law, 751) and Orthodox (e.g. "A heresy is defined as 'a clear difference in the very faith in God.' ... schismatics, i.e., those who split off from the Church on the basis of 'ecclesiastical disputes'", to quote On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches), who together form a clear majority of Christians -- use the word "schism", in religious contexts, in a quite specific sense: in relation not just to any split, but to one that is not over a question of doctrine. Most of the divisions among Christians represented in the graphs were over doctrinal disputes, splits over heresy; they were not schisms in the religious sense (such as the East-West Schism, and the Great Western Schism). So neither graphic is appropriate in this article, which is about schisms, not heresies. Any such graphic about divisions among Christians belongs, in the view of most Christians, elsewhere, not here. Lima 18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a rather theoretical take on the matter since, as material you removed from the article pointed out, accusations of heresy have usually accompanied schisms, and, from the Catholic POV, to be a schismatic is (by now) heretical in itself. Johnbod 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
For Catholics and Orthodox, a decided majority of Christians, the distinction between heresy and schism is by no means merely theoretical. The Catholic Church sees the Eastern Orthodox Church as only schismatic, not heretical - even if some Catholics disagree with their Church's judgement (see this example)! It sees the Lefebvrian movement's bishops as having committed an act of schism, not of heresy. On the other hand, it classifies Protestantism as heresy, not schism. So, when dealing with inter-Christian relations, the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council had to make a clear distinction between the Eastern Churches and the "communities which were separated from the Apostolic See of Rome during the grave crisis that began in the West at the end of the Middle Ages or in later times". Eastern Orthodoxy in the Ukraine is at present divided by schism, not by heresy, into three bodies. Breaks of communion between patriarchates over questions of jurisdiction are other examples of schisms without heresy.
(I should have answered Johnbod's remark earlier: it escaped my notice until now.) Lima 08:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I should perhaps have mentioned earlier that after setting this up I noticed the same "old" graphic had been replaced by the "new" one (and reverted, rereverted etc) on a number of other pages, to which I added talk referring to this survey, and suggesting debabe be centralised here. I'm not 'where' contributors have come to here from, but please bear this in mind. I think I put notes on : Christianity, List of Christian denominations , Christian denomination

Johnbod 14:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "removed material added back"

The removed material that Johnbod added back was "In the [[Early Christianity|early centuries of Christianity]] through much of the [[Middle Ages]], schism was considered by many Christians to be as serious or more serious than [[heresy]].{{Fact|date=February 2007}}. This surprising statement was in fact tagged with a "citation needed" tag since at latest 6 August 2006. In all that time, nobody has come up with a citation. Are we expected to believe that Ignatius of Antioch, who called heretics "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with" (Smyrnaeans, 4), would have used the same or stronger language about people who had a quarrel with the Church authorities but who still held the same faith? I do not intend to engage in an edit war, but I really must remove again this unbelievable material. Lima 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, we are - Ignatius & many of his fellows had equally colourful language for schismatics. Anyway, the whole passage was always oddly placed & the bits you have left were even more so, & rather pointless by themselves, so I have removed the lot. Johnbod 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod that all the material that was there, even what was true, was out of place where it stood. Perhaps we can insert it elsewhere. Lima 14:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals to modify the "old" graphic

  1. Remove the "separate lineage" dotted line: it is an at-least POV statement to say that the Restorationist claim is essentially different from that of the sixteenth-century Protestants.
  2. Reduce the Protestantism line to the same width as the other lines
  3. Instead of "Council of Ephesus (431)", "Great Schism 11th Century", etc., put just "431", "11th Century", etc. The diverging lines are enough to indicate what happened.
  4. Add a pie chart to represent present-day proportions. Lima 08:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say: Yes, yes, no, different issue. Johnbod 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to understand the Roman Catholic Church as the same as the "Early Christianity". The Catholic Church was so before the schisms of East and West, when Constantine called the Council of Nicae in 325.

[edit] Sub-trees

I suggest that a number of "sub-trees" be created, which show the branches within various movements. These would often begin at the end of a node in the current diagram, and would have clear links to each other. This would help to justify a minimalist inclusion of churches in the main diagram, and in addition would be really cool to navigate! For example, see this tree of Millerites. Colin MacLaurin 10:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)