Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

TfD results

Verdict was to keep.

Components of this template.

I think before we try to add this to the Christianity page we need to decide in text what belongs on this template. After that coding it so it is similar to ((Islam)) will be much easier. Also, I don't think we want green. So...

List of needed topics (nest)

I suppose I should note that this would be too bloated to make the template so I think we need consensus on what belongs

Christianity

Fixing the template

I just uploaded my version which is far from spectacular. It needs work but I figured having some sort of basis would allow for edits far better than one that still contained Islamic theology instead of Christian theology. Please help to create a better template through talk and editting so that someday we can link to it on the various pages. As for the direction of this I was not sure. I do not know so much about the Protestant views so I figured I should put what is most general to all mainstream Christians first. I was not sure what to do wit the ecumenical councils and the debates over hypostatic union or theotokos. gren 20:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes.

This is just a call for some substantive and thoughtful changes since hopefully more people are watching this now that it's been on Christianity. I hacked most of this together and used it because it was better than the previous version not because it was good... and, in all honesty I think it needs a fair amount more work. gren 18:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will come along one day with some new ideas. I think it is doing its job well so far. :) --Randolph 00:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Western Catholic?

This would be the first time I had ever heard the Roman Catholic Church described as Western Catholic. --Randolph 00:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


There may indeed be a better way to put this, yes. However, simply referring to "Catholic", sans clarification, as opposed to "Eastern Catholic" is divisive and marginalizing to the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Perhaps "Roman Catholic" or "Latin Rite Catholic" or some form would be an improvement?

John Kenneth Fisher 01:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...I'm not really sure how to clarify the distinction without stepping on someone toes. I've only heard a few references before to the Eastern Rites Catholics. Not being a Catholic, I am not sure of the politics involved in making the distinction. Western Catholic would be a totally new phrase to my ears though. --Randolph 02:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Okay, what I'm going to do is change it to "Roman Catholic" and put it along side "Eastern Catholic". Hopefully this is a good temp. solution, and I agree, "western catholic" was a poor choice, though I didn't make up the term "western rite" . However, some type of minor reorg here should be taken. The current "western christianity" "eastern christianity" layout groups some things such as Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, that can be very different, and separates theologically equivalent things such as the various rites of the Catholic Church. John Kenneth Fisher 00:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

IN FACT, this entire problem of thinking of Roman Catholicism as the whole of the Catholic Church while ostracizing the 20-odd other rites (not unlike thinking of the former USSR as 'Russia', should be seriously addressed in the Catholic entry itself, but I suppose that is a comment better suited for discussion there, once the Benedict business dies down. John Kenneth Fisher 00:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Essentials v. Random

This template seems rather random. It should include the essentials. Wetman 22:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restorationism currently under Western Christianity but IMO belongs under Movements

Or should Restoration Movement be added there. Paul foord 10:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that Restorationism should be replaced under Western Christianity with Anglicanism, and listed under Protestant groups, replacing the Anglicans there. Thoughts? KHM03 12:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Unsure, why Anglicanism to Western Christianity and not for example Lutheranism - both broad & varied with original national basis, have moved Restorationism Paul foord 13:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I haven't moved anything at this point...just seeking opinions. It seems to me that Lutherans, Calvinists/Reformed folks, Methodists, et al are clearly "Protestant". Anglicans, in my view, are not as much, attempting to hold on to Catholic way of doing things, albeit in a distinctly British way. At any rate, it's just a proposal. KHM03 13:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Presbyterian?

Any way we can add Presbyterian to the list of denominations, pardon, Protestant Groups? Not sure that it's absolutely necessary, but thought it would be a good addition... shaile 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

would think Presbyterian covered by Calvinist but Reformed churches probably better as it is more inclusive. Paul foord 03:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Reformed churches includes denominations that differ primarily in church government (Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Non-denominational, etc.). --Flex 15:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Roles - Reverend not a role replace with Pastor & Minister

Properly should be Pastor or Minister and Reverend could replace Priest as well, as the article on Reverend explains. Accuracy rather than formating probably more important - if necessary widen the table. Paul foord 15:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

WIDE LOAD

Can we thin this up a bit? - The movements section seems to be one place to start. Maybe more lines. -SV|t 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Elder

I'd like to add a link to Elder under the roles section. We already have Bishop and Deacon; Elder is also a New Testament term in use by many, perhaps most, denominations. Thoughts? Objections? KHM03 20:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Buildings

The steeple and the pulpit are not buildings but parts thereof. The fact is that they are lesser parts of the church than the altar, which itself can be outside a building. The second part is that the word abbey must be removed and replaced with the word monastery, as an abbey is only a type of monastery. --metta, The Sunborn 18:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Added Altar; changed Abbey to Monastery; changed Buildings to Structures, since an altar is not a building but does merit inclusion on this template as an important structure in Christian buildings. KHM03 12:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I would have rathered the removal of the structures but the result is acceptable. --metta, The Sunborn 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Large Christian denominations not present

I like the template except for the glaring omission of such large churches such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mormons. Is there a reason for their omission? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Would thees organisations consider themselves Christian? Maybe some reference could be made to divergent groups. There are other groups such as the Rastafarians. Paul foord 09:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have no problem with a divergent groups section (as long as it hit the "majors" and didn't get too lengthy). KHM03 11:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Christianity

Some user added this category to the template and I have removed it. My reasoning is that most pages that ((Christianity)) is used on will already be parts of subcategories of Christianity which would make for a lot of pages having redundant categories. gren 21:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Anti-Bloated Template

I have taken the liberty of de-bloating the Christianity template. The proposed new revision of the template can be found here: Template:Christianity/Unbloat. The purpose is to link to only the most relevant aspects of understanding Christianity, its history, and it current presence in the world. Please comment, and, if you like, vote on whether to adopt it. —thames 19:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simpler. I like it. I would add Judaism to the related section, though. --Flex 21:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When making this revision, I only included religions derived (not the right word, but you get my point) from Christianity. If we put precursor religions, we could include Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Gnosticism. That might be too much content to add, keeping the object of simplicity in mind. —thames 21:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm against it because Template:Islam and Template:Judaism are both the same size is this more or less... and, I think this is a good way to cover many relevant topics. gren 21:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's about how much space various religions are "given". I worked on making the Islam template (slightly) smaller, mainly through table-formatting tricks. I was successful in cutting the Communism template down significantly. The point, in my opinion, is not to include every topic related to Christianity on the template, but to provide a quick reference to the most important topics for understanding Christianity. The current template includes a lot of information, but it's not really necessary to go through different Christian Structures or Religious Roles to get an understanding of what Christianity is all about. I think the slimmed-down template is better at getting the reader to the most important elements of Christianity. I think the template suffers from trying to cram too much in (and I think the Judaism and Islam templates do too). —thames 21:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's not a matter of making them the same size... I think there should be a comprehensive area organizing not the completely basic concepts like yours does but not a list like the list of christian topics does. They are trying to cram a lot but I think much of it is useful... You have no mention of the apocrypha which is a link to alternate forms of Christianity... I do agree that Structures and Religious roles do not all need to be enumerate in the template... we could also slim down the movements by linking to what the movements are classified as... it really does need work... I created it in a quick effort.... well, just look at my first change and compare it to what I was trying to make it from... and think that that had been put onto the Christianity page with salafism on it O_O... so, it does needs work.... but I would not cut it down to anything that small without at least having made a good quick reference page that your template links to. I also like the format of the bigger one (the color to dilineate is nice... and I'm not sure if the ichthys is accepted by all... I think a cross is safer? gren 00:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I have no objection to adding a link to the Apocrypha. The proposed template links to an umbrella page for various different movements containing very short descriptions of each (which I think is better than directly linking to them from the template--on the template the user has no idea what each is, limiting the links' usefulness). As far as color issues--I'm really not all that particular, one way or another--my main concern is having too many links and an overwhelming template that includes too many things tangential to the main points of Christianity. On the Ichthys--I had originally wanted to use a cross, but then I remembered that there are many many different types of crosses used: an empty cross by protestants, the celtic cross with a circle, the crucifix by roman catholics, the plus-shaped cross, the crosses used by eastern churches with extra cross-bars, etc. Deciding on one cross to represent christianity might lead to a POV argument, so I thought maybe the ichthys (being an ancient symbol the earliest Christians used to recognize one another) might be more acceptable. I would be open to another symbol if it works out. —thames 21:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone would object to a simple, plain, empty cross. Catholics and Orthodox Christians as well as Protestants would, I imagine, claim it as an appropriate Christian symbol...not to the exclusion of other crosses, mind you, but appropriate nonetheless. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the ichthys, except that the average "man on the street" might have no idea why that is a Christian symbol, when the cross is likely the most recognizable Christian symbol on the planet. KHM03 22:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Image:Christian cross.png looks fine at 50px in place of the Ichthys. The only reservation I have about it is that it takes up more vertical space than the Ichthys, since the Ichthys is a horizontal picture, whereas the cross is vertical. But that's not a terribly huge issue. I think this template is ready to go! —thames 05:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just as an aside: the Christian stub template uses the Ichthys, not the cross. —thames 05:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add, that if we had good comprehensive overview articles for certain topics that are in the current template, we could simply have a link to those overviews, instead of bloating the template with a huge number of individual links. For example, if we have an overview article on Christian religious roles, Christian architecture, or a more comprehensive Christian art (the Islamic art and architecture pages put the Christian ones to shame) we could include them in this template. I confess that I created the Christian movements umbrella page for the sole purpose of having only one article to link to on the unbloated template, rather than seven. —thames 22:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like it...one suggestion: is there a "Catholicism" page which could act as a "main page" between Roman & Eastern rite groups? Might be a bit "neater". KHM03 22:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There certainly is, I've just made the change. Good idea. Too bad there isn't a unified page for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. —thames 22:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made a page for Orthodox Christianity. KHM03 22:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of the new template

I much preferred the older template. You may call it bloated, but "Christianity" is a huge topic and the older template was a comprehensive naviagational aid. This new version is quite cursory. Please revert. --April Arcus 18:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. --—Preost talk contribs 19:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I agree that the old template was more comprehensive. It certainly covered far more things than the new template. However, I think that the new template has several advantages over the old one. It points to the most important overview articles which will give the reader an understanding of Christianity. The old template included links to topics like religious roles, structures, events, cosmology, etc. I doubt many would assert that Chapel, Steeple, and Pulpit are key articles in helping a reader understand what Christianity is about. I think it's more important to link to the main overview articles, rather than trying to get everything related to Christianity into the template. In this sense, I think that the new template is less comprehensive, but probably more useful to readers trying to understand Christianity. If they have to travel one or two clicks deeper to get to an article on the Day of Obligation or on the Liturgy it won't be a disaster. I think that our principal efforts ought to be to make high quality overview pages, like perhaps Christian religious roles or Christian holy cities or Christian events or Christian architecture or Origins and influences on Christianity that could stand in for sections of the old template that constituted a large number of links. I'd like to ask you to give it one more chance, and if you still don't like it, we could put it up for a vote. —thames 19:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the elements of the previous template which you cite were superfluous. However, I found the links to various Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant denominations particularly useful, as well as holy cities and others. Would you consider working on a modified version of the previous template while we use this one as a temporary measure? --April Arcus 23:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One of the serious problems with the new version is that any mention of worship is completely absent, which for the majority of Christians throughout the world is the most central act of their faith. As it stands now, all that's there is essentially a mental/structural representation of Christianity. That is, I would characterize it as essentially representing the POV of [certain kinds of] Protestantism. Perhaps the small details of church architecture are not necessary to include, but the absence of worship from the template represents Christianity essentially as a sort of philosophical movement with various organizations representing it. --—Preost talk contribs 19:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a very good point that you raise. As it stands Christian worship is simply a redirect to Christian music. Why don't we collaborate on a proper Christian worship article, including all the relevant elements that you feel are missing from the new template? I'll go ahead and add a link to Christian worship to the new template, and we can get to work on the article itself later, perhaps this weekend. —thames 20:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restoration movement

I removed Restorationism from the list of branches of Christianity. It's a distinctly Protestant movement, as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, the Baptists, etc. It simply is not a "fourth branch". To list is separately would mean reverting to the previous template and listing all of these "sub-branches" of Protestantism. KHM03 00:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a protestant movement. Although some groups that claim to be restorationists are rooted in protestant backgrounds, some claim a divine authority received directly from God or Jesus and are not groups of people that have protested another pre-existing church. Trödel|talk 01:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Historically, the Restorationist movements have come out of Protestant communities and retained much of the same sorts of doctrine, practice, and worship styles. They may no longer consider themselves Protestant (many Baptists don't, either), but historically, they are. ——Preost talk contribs 02:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
That's not necessarily decisive. Protestantism is, historically, derived from Catholicism. But you don't call Protestants Catholic. Also, Christianity is derived from Judaism, which is derived from Canaanite polytheism, etc. The real question is whether the Restorationism churches, such as the Restoration Movement, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and the Latter Day Saint movement are sufficiently distinct from Protestantism to merit calling them a new branch. Just because it's a new branch (<200 years old, compared to 500 years for Protestantism) doesn't mean it isn't a distinct branch. COGDEN 17:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with you, and with the importance of listing the various "Restoration Movement" churches, I must ask whether you consider them doctrinally linked in the same way that Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant denominations are. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not self-identify with the Latter Day Saints, whereas both a Quaker and Methodist would recognize each other as protestants. As such, while their importance should not be underestimated, it seems to me that they form a paraphyletic grouping rather than a distinct "fourth branch". --April Arcus 23:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Quakers historically haven't identified as Protestants, with good reason. We have distinctly un-Protestant modes of worship, organization, and un-Protestant theology, if we take Lutheranism and Calvinism and the churches deriving from them to be the main exemplars of Protestantism. The primary Quaker systematic theologian, Robert Barclay, was very clear that Quakerism was distinct from both Catholicism and Protestantism; the former places authority on the church and it's tradition (which includes the Bible), the latter places authority on the Bible alone, and Quakers place authority on the Holy Spirit alone. Also, Quakers have always believed (until some began to Protestantize themselves in the 19th century) that Christ, not the Bible, is the Word of God, which is a large break from Protestant orthodoxy. Zach (wv) (t) 02:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I think this is the best reason why Restorationism is not a sect on par with Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestantism. They don't have similar doctrinal foundations, and they don't self-identify with one another. —thames 14:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do agree that the groups don't generally self-identify with each other, despite their common historical origins. But they don't generally self-identify with Protestantism, either, except for some modern Restoration movement and Mormonism groups, which have been working toward ecumenism. COGDEN 23:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well, this indeterminate status, and the focus on subsequent revelation amongst some, was the reason I put them under related faiths originally. I still think this is a good solution. —thames 00:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem with classifying them as "related faiths" is the implication that they are not actually forms of Christianity, which is primarily the POV of a vocal and exclusive minority of evangelicals, but certainly not the view of Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, nor the majority secular view now presented in the Christianity article, which ought to be our guide for the template. For some of the background on this issue as it relates specifically to Mormonism, see Mormonism and Christianity. COGDEN 22:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that for purposes of the template, it is acceptable to list the various denominations together under "restorationist", possibly further distinguishing between Millerite and Campbellite if possible. Thames, will you be willing to work with me on an expanded template or shall I proceed on my own? --April Arcus 06:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If by "expanded template" you mean "adding a link to Restorationism" perhaps. If you mean "adding lots of links to specific articles instead of overview articles" then probably not. Restorationism is already represented on the Christian movements page which is linked to from the template. I'm still not sure why Restorationism as a movement should get a direct link from the template, but not the other movements. —thames 13:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I oppose this idea. I recommend leaving the template "as is"; the necessity of adding a restoration link has not been determined by community consensus. KHM03 13:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User:COGDEN: Another problem is that many "Restorationist" groups (notably the Witnesses...some Mormons, too, I'd wager) don't consider themselves "just another branch" (I suppose the same is true of Catholics & Orthodox groups, too...as well as many fundamentalists). Additionally, a large part of Christendom...probably a majority...don't believe the Witnesses, Mormons, etc. to be another branch of Christianity, but a branch outside of Christianity. I'm not trying to be rude or encouraging of a POV in Wikipedia (and readily admit that I am a United Methodist, so no one thinks I am trying to hide anything), but surely the opinion of most of Christendom matters here and ought to play a role in how we list these groups. THAT SAID, I'm not sure groups like the Witnesses are even large enough to consider listing (there are more Pentecostals in the world than Witnesses, and we don't list Pentecostalism, a group many Protestants would reject as Protestant). I suggest we list Mormonism under "Related faiths". Fortunately or unfortunately, in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, majority perspective does matter. I'm trying to be fair and honest and mean no disrespect. KHM03 22:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


And whether or not some restorationist groups claim a divine authority is irrelevant. Many Protestant groups do the same; certainly Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and Wesley all thought they were operating with divine sanction. The restorationist movement did arise out of "protests" to other groups...what they perceived as poor doctrinal attention, stale practice, and lack of unity in Protestantism. That's simple historic fact; no need to debate that here. These groups are Protestant and shouldn't be treated any differently than other Protestant movements such as Calvinism or Methodism. KHM03 12:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also: I just looked, and there is a link on the Protestantism page to the Restoration Movement. So they're covered. I'm certainly not trying to be disrespectful, and apologize if my tone seems that way; I simply think that this fascinating Christian tradition is already dealt with under the banner of "Protestantism". KHM03 14:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Restoration Movement is not the same as Restorationism, which includes not only the Restoration Movement, but various types of Millerites (such as Seventh-day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses), and Mormonism. Many people don't even consider these groups to be Christian, so it's not a stretch to say they aren't Protestant. COGDEN 17:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

And given that definition, I see the point. The problem is that many who are part of the Restoration movement (Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, etc.) certainly would be considered by most Christians as orthodox. The Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., would not be, and to "lump them together" is probably unfair to all those groups, as well as inaccurate. The Resoration Movement is definitely Protestant. The other groups might fall into another category..."heterodox groups" or, as one scholar denoted, "alternate Christianities". KHM03 19:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are enough similaries between the Restoration Movement and other forms of Restorationism to lump them all together, especially considering they all influenced one another in their formation, which was all around the same time period and based on the same fundamental ideas. And the Restoration Movement, like other forms of Restorationism, clearly represents some kind of break with Protestantism, in that it is a rejection of Protestant denominationalism an attempt to return to 1st Century Christianity. That most Protestants might call certain Restorationists Protestant doesn't mean much, because Restorationists disagree: if anything, Restorationists were "protesting" Protestantism. The real question is, is the Restorationism break sufficiently deep enough to justify calling it a distinct branch. From the Restorationist point of view, most of them are happy to distance themselves from Protestantism, even though Protestantism might think they're all part of the same happy family. (This is like Protestants who disagree with the common Catholic view that theirs is a universal (i.e., "catholic") religion that includes and comprehends Protestantism and other forms of Christianity.) I also disagree with the idea of calling something a heterodox group, or an alternate Christianity, as that has NPOV problems. COGDEN 22:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Most folks in the Restoration movement (Churches of Christ folks) would probably find more in common with a Presbyterian than a Mormon. I'm not saying that as a judgment, just as a reality. If the thrust of "Restorationism" is to restore a pure, pristine, Biblically faithful Christianity, then Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Lutherans might all make that claim.

However, in the 19th century, there was a move among (particularly American) Christians to "get back" to the "roots" and be faithful. Yes, Mormonism, the Witnesses, and the Disciples of Christ all emerged from that movement (as did the Holiness folks). But while they were all reactions to the same historical wave, theologically they were (and continue to be) very different.

Essentially, the Campbellite restoration folks are kind of modified Baptists. They are still very Protestant in their basic theology. This is not true of Mormons or Witnesses (Adventists I'm not too sure about).

What I'm saying is that while the Disciples of Christ (et al) might be connected to Mormonism (et al) historically, they aren't connected as much theologically. Disciples of Christ (et al) are certainly Protestants; I'm not sure that Mormons (et al) are.

Again, I don't have a problem with having a link on the template to other groups...and if "alternate Christianities" or "heterodox groups" aren't acceptable (which is fine with me...I meant no offense), then maybe we can find a term that is OK. "Other groups" might suffice. KHM03 22:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where the different Restorationist groups ended up leaves them far different from one another today, but where they came from is largely the same. Until the mid-1830's, for example, the only significant difference between the Mormons and the Campbellites (and keep in mind that there is a close historical connection between the two) was the fact that the Mormons claimed to be founded on angelic visitations. Today, of course, the two groups are much further apart doctrinally, although the Restoration-movement folks are closer doctrinally (but not that close) to mainstream Protestantism. If we decide that Restorationism represents a distinct branch of Christianity, we have to look at where the religion came from, not necessarily what it is today. It would be easy, for example, based purely on doctrinal and ritual similarities, to classify some Protestants or Orthodox as "essentially Catholic".COGDEN 23:36, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ref to diversity of denominations

A novice trying to drill down to denominations would find the steps from the template unfriendly. The template currently references movements & Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant. To me adding something pointing to the diversity within Christian groups/denominations would be helpful--say point to the List of Christian denominations possibly call it Christian diversity. Paul foord 14:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting doing away altogether with links to Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, & Protestantism, as well as the "movements"? KHM03 14:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would shy away from putting a List article on the template. I wouldn't be against putting a link to Christian denominations however. —thames 17:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Related faiths

When I made the revised slimmed down template, initially I included the Related Faiths section as a place to include religions that are derived from Christianity, even if they include a new revelation. As such I put in Rastafarianism, Mormonism, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. I realize that we are in a dispute over whether Mormonism and Jehovahs are part of a Restorationist sect of Christianity (on par with Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, not simply related faiths).

My question is whether we should include links to religions that influenced Christianity or served as a foundation. These could include Judaism, Manicheanism, Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, etc. I'm not sure it's necessary or helpful to put direct links to these other faiths. If there were an article on Origins and influences of Christianity that gave an overview of Christianity's relationships to these faiths, that might be a better solution. —thames 18:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with listing Judaism et al as related faiths. KHM03 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If we're taking a poll of whether people have a problems with that suggestion, if "Manichaeanism, Gnosticism, and Zoroastrianism" are listed as influences, I would regard that as arising from an anti-Christian POV, FWIW. Mkmcconn (Talk) 4 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Major Changes

A lot of editors have worked diligently on this template. Please talk here before making any major changes. Thanks. KHM03 12:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

To kick off the discussion of the changes: some are not bad.

  1. I think the original structure for the theology subsection was better that "GOD the Trinity: Father Son Spirit" because the latter is less clear, and it omits the link to Christ which is an important article separate from the Jesus article.
  2. Again, I think the original Bible subsection is better because it goes highlights the most important aspects of the Bible, along with the old & new testaments, as well as including the Apocrypha. I had originally been against inclusion of the Apocrypha, but other editors thought this was important, as it was a link to some of the less mainstream branches of Christianity. The substitution of the Sermon on the Mount for the Beatitudes article looks doable, but I'd like to see a better Sermon on the Mount article before making that switch.
  3. The new subsection headed by the Nicene Creed, and including Christian Worship, Salvation, and Grace is problematical. Nicene creed is already covered under the, admittedly lacking, article on Christian Worship. I think the best solution is to work harder on bringing the Christian Worship page up to snuff. Salvation is covered, inadequately, under Christian Theology, but again I feel that the solution here is to make the Christian Theology article better, rather than change the template. Divine grace does not seem to be covered well in any of the articles linked on the template, which is troubling, as it seems to be one of the better articles on Christianity. Where can this be fit in?
  4. The changes to the Christian Church subsection were a step backward in my opinion.
  5. The addition of major historical events to a history subsection is interesting, and may be worth exploring, but we ought to discuss whether these articles truly need a link from the template, or if they are just as well served by one link to Christianity's history.
  6. Removing the Rastari movement link from related faiths is POV, in my opinion. —thames 13:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


DEFENDING MY OVERHAUL:


Christianity

Christian theology
GOD the Trinity:
Father Son Spirit

Nicene Creed
Salvation | Grace
Christian Worship

1. previous version didn't link to "God" page, this does
2. you can get to the "Christ" page through the Son link ("Jesus" page)
3. THEOLOGY has some other topics (other than God), hence the second section
4. The Nicene Creed is the first and most significant Christian theology statement to which all Christians can still agree. It is a glue statement, very important.
5. a couple of the very most important topics of theology are Salvation and Grace, hence they were included
6. Christian worship belongs in this section because right worship is the goal of theology
7. things had to be weeded out, but in my mind these are most important

The Bible
Old Testament
New Testament

Ten Commandments
Sermon on the Mount

8. the apocrypha because it is easily reachable through "Bible"
9. all Christians agree that the OT and NT are parts of the Bible, unlike the apocrypha
10. even those that accept the apocrypha don't consider it a fundamental or primary part of the canon
11. there are highlights in the Bible, hence the second section
12. the beattitudes are included in the sermon on the mount
13. the ten commandments and the sermon on the mount are the two most prominent addresses from God as direct revelation, so I thought them mentionable

The Christian Church
Roman Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Protestantism
Christian denominations

14. included three MAJOR branches of Christendom (and none else)
15. used titles that are historically significant
16. used titles that don't presume universality in themselves
17. included the link to denominations to get to all branches, and even heretical branches

History of Christianity
The Apostles
Ecumenical Councils
The Great Schism
The Reformation
Timeline of Christianity

18. the history section needed to be beefed up .. it is impossible to understand Christianity without knowing some history
19. it is especially important to have a link to the Apostles... it is an apostolic faith
20. the councils are where the fundamental doctrines were hammered out
21. the great schism and the reformation explain why the Church is in the shape it is
22. the timeline is a quick link to historical facts less accessible than the history page

Related faiths:
Abrahamic religions

23. if this related faiths link is even needed at all, Abrahamic religions gives a link to everything necessary
24. Rastafarianism was removed because the section is large enough already
25. Rastafarianism was removed because it has no greater claim than other religions like Mormonism or Santaria, etc.
26. Rastafarianism was removed because it is a tiny faith of insignificance

-- Chris 17:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


My concerns were:
  • 1) the changes were made...big ones...without consulting the rest of us, who have worked to make the template fair & usable
  • 2) we need to include the apocrypha to be NPOV, certainly we need them if we're including pieces of the OT & NT...that's just fair...these books are sacred Scripture for many Christians
  • 3) we were diligent in putting up Orthodox Christianity rather than Eastern Orthodox, as there are Orthodox Christians not considered "Eastern"
  • 4) were also compromised on Catholicism rather than just Roman Catholicism because there are many Catholic Christians who are not Roman Catholic
  • 5) I like the history section
What does everyone else think? KHM03 17:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for integration of Chris's changes

  1. I think the Theology section will survive without a direct link to the God article, which is an overview of many faith's concepts of God, and not specific to Christianity. Moreover, as it exists, Christian theology, The Trinity, God the Father, and The Holy Spirit all link to the God article quite prominently. I do think the idea of moving Christian worship to the theology section is profitable, as well as the inclusion of Salvation and Divine grace. Nicene creed is linked both in Christian worship and Ecumenical Councils.
  2. The Bible section ought to remain as is, except for the substitution of Sermon on the Mount for Beatitudes which is a good change.
  3. The Christian Church section ought to remain unchanged.
  4. The History of Christianity section is good as Chris proposed and ought to be included.
  5. Rastafarinism ought to remain because it is not quite Christian at this point, whereas Mormonism etc are still identified with Protestantism to a degree (although, when I created the Related Faiths subsection I initially did include Mormonism and the LDS, talk page consensus went against that).

Is this acceptable to editors? —thames 20:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. KHM03 20:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Good, improves cut down version w/o the bloat Paul foord 11:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of Rastafarianism?

Over all, fine. But I really can't understand why Rastafarianism is puffed up into such prominent mention. There are thousands of gnostic, politicized, philosophical, theosophical, mystical, syncretistic, esoteric or ecclectic religions that are equally as "related" to Christianity as Rastas are, and many of them are vastly larger. I will remove it, and hope that this is supported. Otherwise, I cannot understand why every boutique faith in the world should not be listed. Mkmcconn (Talk)

I don't know who wrote the above comment, but I could not agree more. I made that point earlier (i.e. the absurdity of including Rastafarianism), but it's nice to have some agreement. -- Chris 00:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting to sign - I'll try to be more careful to do that (I usually am). Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Would you care to name some of the other "thousands" of religions, vastly larger than Rasta, that are equally related to Christianity? Thanks. —thames 12:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

-- Chris 15:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Previous talk page discussion decided that Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses fall under Protestantism well enough (although I had originally included them under Related Faiths too). Pentecostalism is covered under Christian movements. Santeria and Satanism might be profitable additions to the related faiths section, which I wouldn't be against including. Older "heresies" like Sabellianism and Arianism aren't properly "related faiths" so I don't think they would be included. Nor do I see why pagan faiths that incorporate Christian ritual only would be included in Related Faiths, since they don't include Christian theology. Rastafarianism is bible-based (at least as bible based at Mormonism, which I would have included in Related Faiths, if it weren't subsumed under Protestantism). Mooneys and Branch Davidians are cult-size right now, and certainly don't have thousands more followers than Rasta. Can we agree to restore Rasta, with two new additions: Santeria and Satanism? —thames 15:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Sabellianism and Arianism are properly "related faiths". I prefer to keep the "Abrahamic religions" link only. Perhaps there could be a link to another page called "Non-Christian descendent faiths", though I think we would have to include Islam (as well as Sabellianism Arianism Mormonism JWism and of course Rastafarianism) on such a page. -- Chris 16:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW, Non-Christian descendent faiths ARE heresies. From a Christian perspective there is no such thing as a good (and not erroneous) descendent faith. -- Chris 16:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps just have a Related Faiths page where we link the Abrahamic religions page and all these other religions and faith groups. -- Chris 16:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I think a Faiths related to Christianity page, or something similar, might be useful. You'll see above [1] that I proposed an Origins and influences of Christianity article to deal with Judaism, Gnosticism, Manicheanism, Zoroastrianism, local Henotheism, and perhaps even the Osiris cult.
I disagree that Sabellianism and Arianism are separate faiths in the same way that Judaism and Islam are separate faiths. Disagreements over the dogmatic view of the trinity does not a separate faith make. They are heresies but not entirely different religions. Rastafarianism and Mormonism could be classified as related faiths because they are Bible-based to a certain extent, but also include subsequent revelation or teachings (from Haile Sellassie, Joseph Smith, respectively). Jehovah's Witnesses don't have a subsequent revelation, so would not be included as a related faith, but as protestants or a protestant heresy. Islam is related, as it accepts the Bible (sort of) but relies on subsequent revelation. And Judaism fits in because it accepts part of the Bible. Satanism, in its own way, is Bible-based, one could argue. Santeria doesn't fit in as a related faith, since it was really a way of camoflauging pagan beliefs with Catholic ritual.
So I propose, based on the bible-based standard, as related faiths: Abrahamic religions, Mormonism, Rastafarianism, and Satanism (maybe). —thames 18:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Later today or tomorrow, I am going to try my hand at creating a new template that combines the current scaled version with the navigational aide version with the idea of overview pages of certain themes like Related Faiths and Christian Architecture, etc. -- Chris 18:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

thames, I would support links to articles such as those you're proposing, if the name of the link is not an advertisement for dust-bunny heresies, theological quackery and other clutter. [[Gnostic origins ...]] is quackery. [[Gnostic influences ... ]] is speculative clutter. [[Rastafarianism]] is a dust-bunny, a bit of easily overlooked, inconsequential fluff under the furniture. A reader who comes to this tool, designed to present the main heads of issues concerning Christianity in an orderly way, should not expect to find Rastafarianism or Satanism there. History of Christianity is a name with no obvious agenda other than to inform about Christianity, and so it should be included. A link to Comparative religion or a similar overview article or gateway page, would also show a sane sense of proportion, and no obvious subversive intent, you might consider that one. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Protected due to vandalism

Due to the rather persistent multi-ip penis vandalism, I've protected the template. Given that there hasn't been a legitimate edit in almost three weeks, I don't see this as a major hardship. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality and Orthodox Christianity

Neutrality, who I presume is an admin, has changed the link to Orthodox Christianity into two links, one to Eastern Orthodoxy and the other to Oriental Orthodoxy. Previous talk page discussion had arrived at the consensus of making the Orthodox Christianity page specifically for the purpose of not having two different links to the Orthodox churches. Would Neutrality or another admin revert this change which was done without reference to prior talk page consensus or even an appropriate edit summary? Thanks. —thames 02:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree; please...an administrator should change it to the consensus we had. KHM03 12:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality has acted without concensus before -several times -and had been criticized (see his talk page for my other post), however, I will focus on his positive contributions and avoid conflict (see his talk page for that too).--GordonWattsDotCom 22:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Neutrality" is NOT NEUTRAL

The admin? "Neutrality" took GOD out of the Christianity template, and then it was locked from editing. No more Trinity, Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit. He ripped Christ out of Christianity. This is an OUTRAGE! How can we fire the one who locked this thing down? Let's undo this injustice that forsakes the Lord? -- Chris 17:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that. Chris, there's no need to flame Neutrality, but I agree that the Trinity, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit ought to be put back in the template. Neutrality, please unlock editing to the page, and if you're going to make significant deletions, plpease use the talk page in the future. —thames 02:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Hey. Over at Template talk:Islam there has been some debate about adding criticism of Islam to the template. One of the arguments against it has been that criticism of Christianity is not on this template. On Islamic articles there has been a slight problem with editors trying to do things anti-Islam so some of the editors of the template feel it is a continuation. I typically tend to be middle of the line between the two camps and I think it should be added. However, I don't think it will stand if there is only criticism for Islam and not for Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, and the other major belief systems. So, I would encourage you to come to Template talk:Islam and participate in the discussion there and bring this to a more universal level. Thanks. gren グレン 17:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Apocrypha/deuterocanon

Can we change the apocrypha section to read apocrypha/deuterocanon. To call it simply "apocrypha" doesn't ensure the views of all are represented. --Dpr 06:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

On a pragmatic note, putting apocrypha/deuterocanon in would widen the template significantly. As far as content goes, the apocrypha article has a huge amount of useful information, whereas the deuterocanon article basically just explains the semantic different between the Catholic/Orthodox churches and the Protestants. Furthermore, that semantic difference is covered in the first few paragraphs of the Apocrypha article. I would be inclined to let Apocrypha stay as is for now. —thames 01:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Leaving it as it is, though, is a bit exclusionary. If we had a template on Eastern Europe that only listed "Konigsberg" but not "Kaliningrad" this would be a bit slanted...though of course the two term refer to the exact same place, while apocrypha and deuterocanon do not--however, I'd be happy with making a single link [[{apocrypha|apocrypha/deuterocanon}]] pointing to the same article, in light of what you noted. --Dpr 07:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Where's the Roman Catholic Church?

The link to Catholicism actually goes to the correct page for the term, describing the doctrine of the universal Christian church. However, it's in the same section with Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which makes it look like it is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, not the doctrine. I propose a change: The link "Christian Church" link to Catholicism, as the current Christian Church article doesn't provide worthwhile information, and add a link to the Roman Catholic Church underneath it. Philip 18:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Less ambiguity than current exists would certainly be preferrable. But perhaps that's difficult to find a consensus on. --Dpr 22:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Aren't there other Catholic (capital "C") Churhes besides the Roman Catholic Church? And isn't the idea of Catholicism somewhat distinct from the broader, more general idea, of the Christian Church? —thames 01:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I looked back through the talk page and found that the generic Catholicism page was linked because there's a difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite Catholic churches. But there's no generic Catholic Church page to explain this--Catholic Church simply redirects to Roman Catholic Church. There seems to be some more useful information over here: Portal:Eastern Christianity. —thames 16:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
There's no lack of Catholic churches: The several churches of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy each consider themselves to be the universal and true Catholic Church, and typically regard the other of these families and the Western Catholics as heretical and as having left the One Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. (from Catholicism). Then there's the Old Catholic Church.
But the Roman Catholic Church consists of both the Eastern Rite churches and the Latin Rite church (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 8; First Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution de fide catholica).
Pjacobi 17:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Template Layout

I think that the template requires an improved layout. I liked the Islam template - with the clearly defined headings, segregating the sections - I would at least like to see 'headings' included ....eg Church History, Trinity, Theology, Church Doctrine, The Bible....I think this is fairly vital for users to navigate around the material that is included as with the contents of a book - being fairly new to wikipedia I immediately wanted to know what has wikipedia got to say about this - and the template looked very amateur and jumbled. I couldn't find what I wanted.

I propose including headings in the template layout, ala the Islam page.

Georgeous 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)georgeous

I've been involved in editing the Islam template for a while now. Much longer, in fact, than I've been working with the Christianity template. Right now, I feel that the Christianity template is far superior to the Islam template. It's less bloated and less distracting. The Islam template, especially its color scheme, is garish, jarring, and overwhelming on each article page. The Christianity template serves as a succinct guide which does not dominate the article text. The headings on this template are included by bolding. Using headings like the Islam template is just an invitation for horrible color schemes and endless color scheme revert wars.
What was it that you were trying to find but couldn't? —thames 18:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to find out where 'ministry' was covered.... the more 'theological' aspects versus the more 'practical' which had a brief mention elsewhere. Georgeous 23:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)georgeous
actually a list of any article related to Christianity would be helpful... I see there is an alphabetical list of all articles in Wikipedia; I see there are categories and series - that don't always locate the information required, depending if people have indexed articles appropriately - but is there a simple 'contents' or 'index' like page for those that would 'link' themselves to an area(s)? if so where? Georgeous 00:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)georgeous
Are you suggesting that the template should be a list of all articles pertaining to Christianity? That would probably include many hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and therefore would be entirely useless as a template. There already exists Portal:Christianity and of course Category:Christianity. —Preost talk contribs 13:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like such a list of articles, but probably not in the template (but a link in the template to some kind of contents/index of given keywords might be useful!)- Portal and Category seem to depend upon contributors listing their pages, with no 'consistency' as to where pages are 'listed' (if at all). Maybe the template would benefit from an 'index' /'contents' like feature, and this canbe done 'manually'? or maybe it is part of a Wikipedia wishlist. Georgeous 23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)georgeous

Plagarism?!!

I think the template follows the outline of [Theopedia] too closely... apart from 'contemporary issues' and 'Christian living' the 'sections' are virtually identical. While there is likely to be overlap because of certain 'key' elements, it is like having every theology book have identical sections- it just shouldn't happen unless there has been overlap created by the authors themselves (?), whcih I thinkshould be avoided. Despite being talk of merging with [Theowiki] the projects are still apparently distinct....

I propose the Wikipedia contributors should consider the overlap/distinction from these other forums!

Georgeous 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)georgeous

Georgeous, please do some research before making loud claims of plagiarism. The current Christianity template design was made (by myself) on June 6, 2005 [2]. The Theopedia Christianity template was created September 29, 2005 [3]. Thus the wikipedia template design predates the theopedia template design by nearly three months. If you were to accuse anyone of plagiarism, it would be theopedia. However, since Wikipedia is a free resource, and the templates are not copies of one another, it would be erroneous to accuse theopedia's editors of plagiarism. Calm down. —thames 19:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Please note the query '?' inviting more input about this 'overlap' and the double exclaimation '!!' indicating the tone in which the 'observation' was made - far from the 'accusation' which you seem to hear?! Georgeous 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)georgeous
Such idiosyncratic use of punctuation is bewildering and apparently obscures your intended meaning. I myself interpret a "!!" as indicating shouting and probably anger. My own take on your remarks is essentially the same as that of thames. —Preost talk contribs 02:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
So what about the overlap? The licence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) suggests that verbatim copying is possible anway...<insert question mark to clarify interpretation> .. so anyone could take anything from any document and sell it <insert question mark to clarify interpretation> but with the template, what is Wikipedia focusing upon? This seriously affects what is in the template, and influences all discussions of detail we may have <insert exclaimation mark to indicate a making a good point><insert question mark to clarify further input is sought / or forum that discusses this> Georgeous 23:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)georgeous
I cannot decipher what you're trying to communicate. Honestly, I don't think it matters to any of the editors here if the template over at theopedia overlaps. If both templates are trying to distill the most useful links concerning Christianity, I would be more concerned if there wasn't overlap. —thames 05:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
A few thigns come to mind - The fact that templates may need to depart from each other, depending on the purpose of the forum ; the simple fact that Wikipedia can be different ...or if it is really beneficial that there is overlap, that these other forums and Wikipedia are brought into even greater consistency. In which case the 'template' becomes a more general 'article' (perhaps of great value) that 'itemises' Christianity in a certain definitive and absolute way (like the periodic table for chemical elements or some)
If you would like to propose a set of changes, by all means go ahead. I very strongly doubt that any editor here would accept changes made simply on the basis that the template here shares some features with the template at theopedia. The wikipedia template is made for the sole purposes of wikipedia, and not as a complement to any other web resources. —thames 20:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ministry & Mission

The template neglects a couple of vital areas of Christianity .. ministry & mission!!!

Mission - We probably don't need a page for every mission agency on the planet -but something to point to the tangible life and work of individuals and organsations, would not go a miss. Someoverlap wtih history and ecclesiology would probably occur.

Ministry - There are some important items to include about ministry, within the church and outside... including the theory and practice. The different areas of ministry; the different approaches to ministry (family-based, youth ministry, inter-generational); the different underpinnings of ministry... there seems to be a complete gap in most of the Wiki forums about 'minsistry'. Some overlap with theology and ecclesiology would probably occur.

I propose adding a 'Ministry and Mission' section to the template. Georgeous 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)georgeous

I would not be against adding "Ministry · Mission" to the template, just below Christian worship. But I'd like to know if the other editors agree that these are essential topics and are not redundant with the Christian worship or other overview articles already on the template. —thames 19:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Such an addition strikes me as redundant and contributing to bloat. —Preost talk contribs 02:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: The inclusion of Criticisms of Christianity to this template

Before we can even begin to think about thinking this NPOV horror to this template, the article needs massive rework. It is filled with NPOV issues, in nearly every section, and is a long, long way from being acceptable. KHM03 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Additionally, to address the rationale for including it ("article purports to be part of the series"), just because an article includes this template doesn't mean it gets linked from the template. Only major articles of good quality get linked. There are quite a lot of articles that include the template but aren't included in it. —Preost talk contribs 20:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest that a relevant article get linked on the template even if it isn't yet an article of "good quality". In this way, wikipedians are more likely to end up visiting that article and hopefully editing it so that its quality is improved. Besides, if "good quality" were to be a criteria, who would be the arbiter of whether the quality of the article is "good" enough? --Aquarius Rising 22:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the overall quality (which is substandard)...it's the POV issues involved. If we could clear those up, I'd be happy to support inclusion of the link. KHM03 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a relevant article get linked on the template even if it isn't yet an article of "good quality" (which includes the issue of NPOV good quality). In this way, wikipedians are more likely to end up visiting that article and hopefully editing it so that its quality is improved. --Aquarius Rising 22:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: The inclusion of the link to the Criticism article (even as that article reads now) is important for the NPOV of the template.--Aquarius Rising 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Christ the Son" awkward

The section under The Trinity with "Christ the Son" is somewhat awkward. There should be parentheses or something to denote clearly that there are two different articles here.-Grick(talk to me!) 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Gave it a shot with a reorginzation. The trinity is a theological doctrine, Jesus can be considered to have two natures. His widley accepted historical existance, and His (not capital H) Essense as the Christ. The second is doctrine. Also, I consider the Crusades to be an incredibly important part of Christian history, as it set the tone for Christian relations with Islam and Eastern/Western Christians for ages. Made the changes thus.--Tznkai 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
An Important figures subsection could open a very large can of worms, with people adding doxens of their favorite theologians and popes, etc. I'm going to roll Jesus and the Apostles both back under the history rubric, since they can logically fit there as well. —thames 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This does open up a large can of worms, and I'm new to templates, so I'll follow your lead on this one. Can you address in the section below please?--Tznkai 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Important figures

Whether or not my change[4] sticks. I think we need to address some of the more important figures in Christianity. The Apostles and Jesus of Nazareth are obvious, but how about Constantine? Roman Empire --> Holy Roman Empire changed Xianty forever. Perhaps John the Baptist going the other direction, or Thomas Aquanius, (St.) Augstine, and Martin Luther? While I know some of these are probably covered in the other articles, from a religious historian's perspective you cannot possibly understand Xianity without knowing atleast a little of all of the above.--Tznkai 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. History of Christianity should cover this in its article proper. "Important figures" will be far too subjective. Additionally, it moves the focus of the template away from the theology, which is where I think the focus should remain. —thames 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that you can't understand the theology without understanding the history that spawns it, but thats a seperate discussion. The Nicene Creed would never have happened without Constatine certainly, or is that covered in the ecumenical councils as a subtopic?--Tznkai 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Constantine and the Constantine shift is covered under History of Christianity—not particularly well, but it is covered. I think it would be more profitable to collaborate on improving History of Christianity than trying to compensate with the template. —thames 23:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Granted. I got dragged inot the template because of a discussion going on at Jesus. At any rate, I strongly maintain that The crusades are notable enough on their own (This isn't just one or two year long wars people), and that having Jesus of Nazareth as the starting point and putting Christ the Son seperate is a Very Good Thing.--Tznkai 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah i have no problem separating Jesus and Christ, which is why I did so when I initially made this version of the template. It was just a bit awkward, but I think we've arrived at a decent solution. Do you think the Crusades were theologiclaly significant? —thames 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something along the lines of "Those of who you go forth in war agaisnt the infidel shall pass unto paradise without judgement"--Tznkai 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Bwahaha! Found it. ""All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested."--Tznkai 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Nearly every time Christian armies went to war there was some sort of assurance made to the fate of their souls--murder without sin or the like. Crusades were no different. Did the Crusades have a significant effect on Christian theology? —thames 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Crusades were the biggest and best(worse, but it doesn't aliterate as well), and it spanned several Popes, Christian knightly orders, etc. Such a massive effect on history cannot but have an effect on theology. At anyrate, I think if you say "History of christianity" You hit Jesus, Early Church, Nicene Creed, Great schism, Crusades, Reformation. Removing the Crusades takes away something huge about Christianity. Its own understanding of what "Holy War", a multinational force under papal supremecy by the sheer force of sinless murder.--Tznkai 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Template overhaul?

Other articles on
Christianity
File:Christian cross.png

History of Christianity
Ecumenical councils
Great Schism
Crusades
Reformation
Inquisition·Witch-hunts
Fundamentalism

Christian theology
The Trinity
Nontrinitarianism
Salvation

The Bible
Old Testament
Ten Commandments
New Testament
The Gospels
Apocrypha

Major Personages
Jesus
Paul of Tarsus
Augustine of Hippo
Thomas Aquinas
Martin Luther
John Calvin

Christian denominations

Generally, Nav templates try to hit the major points. There should probably be a sub template for "history of Xianity"

I would agree that the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, & Fundamentalism aren't important enough (compared to the Trinity, Jesus, etc.) to merit a link here. KHM03 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the major additions in this are extremely slanted toward Western Christianity. —Preost talk contribs 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What would you add?

Why can't a Christianity template mention history and major theological points (such as the Trinity, etc.)? KHM03 11:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can dump the "series" tag as far as I'm concerned. But the template attenpts to link to the very most important things in/about Christianity. Big picture: that's not Witch hunts & the Inquisition. It is grace, Luther, the Great Schism, etc. KHM03 12:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

POV?

I'm nost sure I see any POV violations in the template; it's not as if there's something linked on the template that is blatantly inappropriate. In response to User:JimWae, I'm also not sure that the Inquisition is major enough to merit its inclusion. What other links ought to be included? I do understand the case for not including the members of the Trinity once we link to Trinity, but it would be difficult to imagine a legitimate Christianity template which does not include links to Jesus and the Holy Spirit...pretty important, wouldn't you say? What's more important in Christianity? KHM03 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

revert to time-tested version

This template is meant to be a very general overview of Christianity. As such it needs to includes of all important aspects of Christianity, but not everyones pet point of Christian history, or any other category. No witch hunts, etc. If you include stuff like this, then the principle of equity would force a full page of links. Even the Crusades are questionable. If you include them, then why not a link on the "Christianization" of Europe?  Iceland Guðsþegn – UTCE – 05:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Crusades were incredibly signifcant. Years and Years and a dozen wars involving the subgation of several cultures, cities under various rulers all the qhile evolving the authority of the Church, the rightness of war and God, etc. In another sense, the Crusade's is Christianity's great Sin. You ask people on the street what they know about Christians and what they've done, Crusades will be on the list. It is in a large part thought to be a major factor in modern west-middle east diplomacy, etc. The old version worked for a while, now it doesn't. Improve and move on. Wikipedia is always under construction--Tznkai 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind inclusion of the Crusades, but, yeah, the witch hunts and Inquisition would be a bit much. It would require us to list a lot of other things. Hey, as far as negative stuff...what's worse than the Great Schism? KHM03 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Islam does not feature a link on the wars of expansion fought by Islam's armies. I see no reason to feature Crusades or Christianization of Europe on the template. Both topics are readily accessible under the History of Christianity rubric.—thames 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the inquestitions and witchhunts are small fish in a very large pond. There were, as I recall around 9 major church sanctioned wars spanning two centuries. I think that merits inclusion in this template--Tznkai 16:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as including Jesus of Nazareth under the historical section and Christ under the theological section, I think that's fine, and a good way to bypass the hack I originally contrived to try and fit Jesus and Christ onto the same line. I'm going to put that change back. Thames 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, too. —Preost talk contribs 15:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the denomination was moved above cath, orth, prod, not removed.--Tznkai 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bible

I'm gonna go ahead and clip this section out entirely and move Bible under Xian theology. I'd like the template to not be huge myself, and OT, NT, Etc is really nitty gritty.--Tznkai 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the different parts of the Bible are nitty gritty. The Bible is *the* Christian document. You might quibble with having the Ten Commandments or Sermon on the Mount on the template, but even still, those are the two most widely cited, theologically significant passages from the Bible.—thames 19:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think just having The Bible covers it all pretty well, but thats just me. How about "The Christian Bible" with Oldtestiment and New Testiment beneath?--Tznkai 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is going to be confused about which Bible is being linked on the Christianity template.—thames 23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Neither do I, I just think its better scholarship as there is the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible and some people like to talk about the Mormon Bible, etc. I just think it looks better, as well as being more accurate and neutral--Tznkai
Well, the Manual of Style says to use the most common name. We're linking to an article named "Bible". If that were POV, that article would have been moved to "Christian Bible". But since we go with the most common usage for namespaces, it's in the "Bible" namespace. I think the template should be consistent with existing consensus as reflected by the existing article namespace.—thames 01:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

More changes

Whee. Yes, I'm still trying to improve the template I moved Xian church under theology, broke salvation and grace to their own lines, and bolded Xian denoms inations over RCC Orthodox and Prodestantism, Bible is now OT NT and APoc.--Tznkai 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tz, these edits make no sense. Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy are not denomenations, they are sects of the Church. The Church isn't a theological idea, and it makes no sense to separate the church link from the major sects. Calling it "The Christian Bible" is not less POV than just the "Bible". The namespace of the linked page is "Bible". If that were a POV namespace it would have been moved. It's not, it's just the most common usage, and Wikipedia Manual of Style says to use to most common usage. Same goes for changing Christ into "God the Son" and the Holy Spirit into "God the Holy Spirit". These are far less common usages. Finally, I'm upset that you've made no effort to build consensus on the talk page, something multiple editors have requested of you before major changes are made. Wikipedia survives on consensus. Please seek agreement before making radical changes.—thames 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how they make no sense, or how theses are "Radical changes" and "building consensus" does not mean propose an idea on the talk page and hope people latch on to it eventually. Hell this isn't even a contraversial article. We are allowed to experiment with style, attempt to improve, fix typos, change markup, and otherwise try to make things better.
According to my religion text book you have three divisions in Xianity. Denominations Sects and Cults. Denominations are mainstream trinitarians including RCC, Orthodox, Prodestants, etc.. Sects are things with signfiicant deviation but recognizably Xian. Jehova's witnesses, and Latter Day Saints. Cults are religions that further deviate from there. Denomination implies division within a group. and the RCC Prodestants and Orthodox seem to qualify rather nicley. The Christian bible refers very specificly to the combination of the OT+NT in the Christian order as opposed to the HB which is the Tanakh in a diffrent order without the N.T. Furthermore it fits into the style of the article very well. (Xian Denom, Xian ecu, Xian movements, etc.) This is a stylistic and accurate poitn more than a neutrality point. As for "denominations" I'll again remind that the denomination article itself lists RCC on it!"--Tznkai 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Trinity

In the template, the displayed members of the Trinity are described as:

It sounds odd to me, so I changed the displayed names to read:

My suggested formulation highlights more clearly that, under a Trinitarian view of God (which is the point of the Trinity subheading in the template), all three persons in the Trinity are considered God, not just only God the Father.

Unfortunately, my changes could reverted. Any comments, suggestions? --Aquarius Rising 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, the brackets will cause major chaos in wikipedia Markup. That aside, this trinitarian view is not universal, and is a bit confusing. A lot of modern prodestant churchs just say God, Christ holy spirit, all of which are One in their Divinity, or some such. To someone without background in Trinity theology they will be very confused.--Tznkai 01:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we compromise on:
—thames 01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not keen on that idea. It suggests that only God the Father is God and that Christ isn't God (and that the Holy Spirit isn't God). --Aquarius Rising 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this (i.e., not calling any of them God on the template)?

  • The Trinity
  • Father
  • Son
  • Holy Spirit

That way we aren't implying that the second two of the three persons aren't God. --Aquarius Rising 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, we're running into a barriers of entry problem. Most people know the trinity as God the Son and the Holy Ghost, or something similar.--Tznkai 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm basing my naming scheme on the Wikipedia manual of style, which says to use the most common name. The relevant articles are named "Trinity" "God" "Christ" and "Holy Spirit". So I think it would be best just to use what has already been adopted as the most common naming scheme. If those articles were in a POV namespace they would have been moved by now. But it seems like people have agreed that those names are the most common names. Therefore, I think it makes sense to use those names on the template as well. —thames 01:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because the articles happen to have certain names, that doesn't mean that the displayed names on the template have to be identical to the article names. When those particular names you wish to have displayed are displayed together, they raise the problems noted in my 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC) comments, above. Just because that's the way the articles are named doesn't make it the right answer for the template. The three displayed names for the three persons of the Trinity on the template have to jive together; that's the problem. --Aquarius Rising 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Any of the names of God do justice? Jehova is a misnomer. Adonai doesn't work either. Ideas?--Tznkai 02:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You raise a goof point, Aquarius, about indicating that all are considered God. However, it would be strange to have a Christianity template without a link to Christ, no? You're also correct that the namespace doesn't dictate what must appear on the template. However, I think it's a good guideline, and probably the best way to approach the issue neutrally. After all, JimWae seems quite bent out of shape about the possibility that the template might be proselytizing. "God the Son (Christ)" seems more awkward than my earlier hack of [[Christ]] [[Jesus|the Son]].—thames 02:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Then how about this (another way of labelling without calling any of them God on the template)?
  • The Trinity
  • Father
  • Son [Christ]
  • Holy Spirit
or
  • The Trinity
  • Father
  • Christ, the Son
  • Holy Spirit
--Aquarius Rising 02:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We're running into the problem that God the Father uses God both to mean the Monothestic Divine but God as in YHVH or however you spell the tetragammon. Its God, a definitive person while Father is not.--Tznkai 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Tzn makes a good point. We may have to trust that the reader will see the Trinity rubric and understand that the three articles below it are the three aspects of the Trinity. Even if one is named God, and the other two are Christ and the Holy Spirit, I think it may be acceptable. Still, "God the Father" "Christ the Son" and "The Holy Spirit" seems to get the point across rather well.—thames 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As I've mentioned before, the problem with "God the Father" "Christ the Son" and "The Holy Spirit" is that it leaves the impression that the template considers only God the Father to be God and that Christ and the Holy Spirit aren't considered by the template to be God. --Aquarius Rising 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Then they should read the articles I guess. Any other solution just seems to make it murkier.--Tznkai 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian Church and One Holy...

The current Christian Church article makes little to no sense to me, and what is there that I understand seems to be redundant with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church article. Perhaps I'm missing something? I've linked Xian church under the Theology section. to the latter concept about the Body of Christ whether in prodestantism or Catholic/Orthodoxy. Comments?--Tznkai 16:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My take on the recent changes

  1. "Jesus" is the correct link; "Jesus of Nazareth" is just a redirect page.
  2. Nothing wrong with listing the Crusades; they were among the most important events in post-NT Christian history (along with the Great Schism & the Reformation).
  3. Let's not get too caught up in how we list the Trinity; how about God the Father, Jesus, & Holy Spirit? The links & context will explain the rest, I think.
  4. If we list the Bible (which we should), do we still need the 10 Commandments & the Sermon on the Mount? It's a bit redundant.
  5. I'm not sure that either the "Christian Church" or the "One Holy..." link are best. Denominationalism, for good or ill, is with us, and I think that's the better link.

Just some thoughts. KHM03 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. So its not just me flooding the template history, why don't you go ahead and fix some of those? Certainly #1 should be an uncontraversial edit. Anyway, my responses:
  1. Agreeed.
  2. Concur
  3. I like Jesus the Christ or perhaps Christ. In a lot of trinity theology Christ (being) and Jesus (man) are seperated. Sorta. About as much as the trinity is one and 3 at the same time.
  4. I'm not sure if we need OT and NT, but thats just me. What are your thoughts?
  5. My concern here is that the Christian Church article isn't very good, so it certainly doesn't explain why its on the template. I think the One holy... hits the concept of "an institution of believers/the body of christ" better, which is a major theological point.
--Tznkai 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the changes appear to be already present.

  1. The reason I suggested the Trinitarian order I did is because it's fairly simple and taken right out of traditional liturgy; however, we don't need to list Jesus twice. There ought to be sufficient links at the articles for Trinity and Jesus that one can explore the "Christ" concept and "Christology".
  2. I don't think we need OT and NT...just Bible (or Christian Bible...I don't really have a preference...but since it's a Christianity template, perhaps the "Christian" part can be fairly assumed).
  3. You are quite correct, the Christian Church article stinks. But I'm not sure the One Holy... article is much better, though I firmly believe the doctrine. Maybe we need to pick one and improve it. I still think the denominations link is important; if for no other reason, it allows a reader to look at various links and read up on distinctives. KHM03 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's also Template:Christian theology, which needs attention. KHM03 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

More