Talk:Protestantism/Archive 1

A summary of Protestant views on homosexuality should be started on the new page discussing Religion and homosexuality.

What's the best way to mention the oft-heard usage, "Catholics and Christians" whereby Christians refers to Protestants or some supposedly authentic subgroup, and Catholics wind up sounding non-Christian? --Ed Poor

English seems to lack a word for Christian denominations which have never been a part of the Roman Catholic Church, such as some of the Syrian churches, the Saint Thomas Christians of India, and the Ti-Ping movement. These are often called Protestant but the useage is not correct because they did not protest against and leave the Roman Catholic Church in the first place, but formed separately.

Most of these present no problem - they are either Catholic, Eastern Orhodox, or Oriental Orthodox. The Syrian churches are either members of Eastern Orthodoxy (The Syrian Orthodox Church), the Catholic Church (the Melkite Catholic Church), or are part of Oriental Orthodoxy. None of those are single words, but they are in general usage in English to describe them. The Thomas Christians are called Malabar Christians or Thomas Christians, who for a very long time had Syrian bishops and were in communion with the Oriental Orthodox. I don't know about the Ti-Ping movement. --MichaelTinkler

I like classifying things into categories when possible. It makes them easier to remember and refer to. Here are some ideas, many of which are probably wrong (or worse, useless):

Protestant vs. Catholic
Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox. (supposed to comprise the totality of Christianity. Ha.)
Christian vs. Heathen
Christian vs. Catholic (do Catholics employ this division too?)

Here are some labels, which may or not be useful:

Fundamentalist
Heretic
Cult

Note that many Christian groups do not consider themselves "denominations" although that's a handy way to describe them. --Ed Poor

*Christian vs. Catholic (do Catholics employ this division too?) No, Ed, the narrow-minded among Catholics refer to 'Catholics and non-Christians'. It might be better, rather than making lists, to write entries explaining why people think a 'vs.' is useful. --MichaelTinkler

What we're currently listing as denominations are really categories, types or groups of denominations, not the denominations themselves. The actual number of distinct Protestant denominations runs into the tens of thousands. I'd like to suggest that we call the list here something like "Categories of Denominations" and pretty much leave the list, except maybe delete Free Methodist; it's actually specific. If someone wants to list or create an entry for an actual, specific denomination, it can be listed on the Baptist or Methodist page. If it fits in more than one category, perhaps Baptist and Calvinist, there's no harm in listing both. I just don't think we want the list on this page to risk growing into dozens or hundreds.

So, any strong feelings about what to rename the list? --Wesley

Wesley: I agree, but instead of the terms "categories" or "groups", I'd prefer to say "families of denominations" or "Protestant traditions", or something like that. (Just think it sounds nicer.) -- SJK

"Families of denominations" sounds good to me. I wasn't really comfortable with any of my suggestions, and I'm glad you thought of something better. -- Wesley

I added a brief explanation of various categories of Protestantism that can cross denominational lines. I also added to the list of well-known Protestants, but now I'm wondering if Desmond Tutu should be on the list, because he's technically Anglican. I'm not Catholic, but I too think of most non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians as Protestant, even though that may not be technically correct.

I would say keep Desmond Tutu. John Wesley was an Anglican, but no one really asks whether or not he was a Protestant. :-)
charleschuck

Not sure about the distinction between mainline (mainstream) protestants and evangelicals. It sounds like you're classifying liberal as mainstream, which is not necessarily representative of protestantism worldwide. In the Anglican communion, for instance, the US Bishops seem more "liberal" than African Bishops.

To my mind there's more of a spectrum:

Liberal.....Evangelical....Fundamentalist

Paul

Perhaps "progressive" would be an acceptable alternative to "mainline" or "liberal"? It doesn't make claims about how widespread or representative it is, and I think it is at least somewhat common among people who hold those sorts of views. Also, I've always heard "mainline" used to describe a denomination, not different points of view within a denomination or a particular group of beliefs. Wesley 16:53 Sep 18, 2002 (UTC)

We should have something on the page on Henry VIII and the Church of England, no?

We should have something, yes! Or maybe, on second thought, that should be developed under the entry on the Reformation?

Added a sentence on the COE, since the Reformation page is still a stub, and England's story is unique and important. - mkmcconn

Sidd Sabtela, decided that there was no sex allowd

It doesn't seem appropriate to put somebody even Google hasn't heard of, under Well known protestants - mkmcconn

Why have the many Wikipedians who write on religion not collected the hundreds of articles on religion on the List of religious topics page? Did the creation of that page escape everyone's notice, or is it just not considered a good idea?

Well, those of us writing on the subject mostly know what the topics are, so that page isn't as useful for us, nor is it controversial, so I guess it tends to get ignored. What exactly is its purpose? Most of the religious articles are heavily cross-referenced, so if someone has a slightly more specific question in mind, can probably find what they want by following links. Haven't looked yet, but I bet they could start at religion and find most related articles. Wesley

Regarding the paragraph on sola scriptura, someone wrote this:

This paragraphed seems a little biased towards the premise that it is a question of who has the authority to interprate scripture, the indiviudual or the church. A better replacement for this would be "Against the Catholic view that faith comes from the teaching of the Church (which the Bible written by the Church is the most excellent example of), Protestants believe that the Bible alone should be looked at for instruction in the faith.

I think I prefer the current paragraph as it is, but that may be because of my own bias in that direction. It seems that while Protestantism does attempt to rely on the Bible alone for instruction in the faith, they also place the privilege and responsibility for interpreting scripture with the individual, according to their understanding of the "priesthood of all believers". Perhaps there's a way to add the above alternative instead of replacing what's there? Wesley 14:11 24 May 2003 (UTC)

The radical individualism that you are talking about is not Protestantism per se, Wesley. Protestantism decides what the matter is, which the Church is given to teach; and that is, the Bible alone. Later movements, within Protestantism, have left all issues of doctrine for the individual to determine, from the Bible alone. The first issue divides Protestants from Roman Catholics. The second issue divides Protestants from one another. Mkmcconn 14:40 24 May 2003 (UTC)

I think that individualism can be easily seen in the Anabaptist movement from the beginning of the Reformation, so it's not just something that came in later. When Martin Luther made his famous "Here I stand" speech, he was standing alone as an individual IIRC. ("Hier stehe ich auf; ich kann nicht anders.") Did the followers of Luther and Calvin follow them because they were individually persuaded that these men were right on many points of doctrine, or because they trusted them as persons to guide them in matters of faith? Did the Lutherans trust Luther's authority in matters of doctrine, or did they trust their own ability to choose between Luther, Calvin, the various Anabaptist leaders or the Roman Catholic Church? And what was the significance of the printing press and native language translations with regard to individualism? The answer isn't going to be the same for everyone; it probably depended on people's class in society, which country they were in and which people and books they were able to hear and read. Wesley 14:51 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Luther was a theologian, as scholar in a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church, who along with many other Catholics of the time made the great mistake of the late Medieval/early Modern period, in believing that it was possible for the Church but not for God to make mistakes. When faced with the difference between what he wrote as a theologian and what the church taught, he confessed his helplessness to intentionally contradict the Scriptures for the sake of agreeing with the Church. This was the same mistake that Galileo made, too. Galileo differed only in that he withdrew his mistake, and repented of having a brain and a conscience. Mkmcconn \

You are correct in identifying the Anabaptist movement as the stream of individualist thinking - although keep in mind that the Anabaptists tended to produce communalism, even at the beginning. The individualism is inherent in their view of the covenant and of baptism as the sign of the covenant. Only individuals, not households, can be added to the church. This view survived in a modified form in Congregationalism, and was restored completely in the Baptist movement. But you see, those who believe this doctrine of a pure church, consisting only of individuals who have had a conversion experience, comprise distinct movements - persecuted movements within Protestantism. In contrast are the Lutherans, who believe in baptismal regeneration, and the Reformed, who believe that the covenant is with believers and their children. Both of the latter established national churches: an impossibility in Anabaptist thinking. Mkmcconn \

It does not help understanding to exaggerate this tendency toward individualism, to make it universally similar among all Protestants. It makes a caricature. To do so renders inexplicable the busy creed-making, the national churches, and the governmental structure of Protestant churches, and the persecution of non-conformists in the early years. You might say that these are indications of inconsistency. Rather, it is a better indication that you have it wrong. The Protestants were not radical individualists, except in those movements which were dedicated to principles of radical individualism. Mkmcconn 22:16 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Luther was certainly an individualist when it came to himself and the interpretation of scripture. He made himself judge of not only the Church but of Scripture itself when he discarded the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament and tried to discard the Epistle of James as well. (Admittedly, he was able to be persuaded to leave it in.) Galileo was at odds with the Church mainly because the Roman Catholic Church had allowed itself to come under the sway of scholasticism, which led to a number of problems, that being one of them. \

It's nearly impossible to say anything about Protestantism and have it apply to all Protestants the same way; there's too much diversity. Yes, the leaders of the national churches did not wish to extend the right to interpret scripture freely to everyone in the church, and did their best to encourage conformity, at least regarding the points they held were most essential. Yet they also each came up with their own creeds; I'm trying to remember if there was ever a schism in church history prior to this that split into more than just two groups. It certainly set the stage to solve disputes through schism, which has led to the growing fragmentation in Protestantism. \

We're probably not going to reach agreement on how best to interpret this stretch of history any time soon. However, I will grant you that the sola scriptura paragraph probably is slanted a bit towards my own POV if it's slanted at all, and I welcome suggestions to correct this. Wesley 13:59 28 May 2003 (UTC)