From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).

Evangelicalism v. Evangelism[edit]

What are the differences between evangelicalism and evangelism? Do modern preachers of the Gospel call themselves Evangelicalists or Evangelists? Does the article need to mention the Great Commission and the disciples spreading the Gospel throughout the known world? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Evangelism is the act of evangelizing. Evangelicalism is a type of Protestant Christianity. An "evangelist" is a title that was in existence in the early church. Evangelists have as the main focus of their ministry the task of evangelizing. No one that I'm aware of calls themselves an "Evangelicalist." I think you just made that word up. Christians who subscribe to Evangelicalism are called Evangelicals. Ltwin (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


The notion that a child in the womb is already a "person", is a modern one. The medieval church taught, that before three month pregnancy, there is no "person" and abortion is allowed. Thus, the extreme evangelical position that no abortion is allowed whatsoever is of course not "conservative", but modern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Race and Politics in Evangelicalism[edit]

The content that I removed, which was subsequently replaced in this edit, seems questionably accurate and not very relevant to the section, which is about political views of evangelicals, not racial groups. Furthermore, it seems in conflict with the results of the Pew Forum's research, which does not seem to support making such broad statements about race, religion, and political views. Could Rjensen or anyone else with an opinion on this issue please explain the rationale behind including this paragraph in the article? -- LWG talk 20:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: The following discussion occurred on Rjensen's talk page. I invite anyone who has an interest in this to contribute. Thanks! -- LWG talk 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Begin copied discussion[edit]

Could you please explain the reasoning behind the content you restored there? I am still having difficulty understanding why it is relevant. Thanks! -- LWG talk 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

you erased sourced info -- I suppose because it wasn't too clear. I rewrote the info (on blacks) and added some 19th century history and clarified roles of some majore denominations today. cheers. Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
My main concern wasn't whether it was sourced, but whether it is on-topic for that article. If you see the message I posted on the article's talk page, the statistics I was able to find seemed to paint a less clear-cut picture than the article as written currently reads. I have two specific concerns:
  • According to the statistics compiled by the Pew Forum, 34% of Evangelicals identify as Democrats, 33% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 26% believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society. The wording "There is a small group of liberal white evangelicals" makes it seem like the number is far smaller than it actually is.
  • The article makes special mention that Black Evangelicals are generally democratic and liberal. While true, this is also true of non-Evangelical Blacks, and is thus a statement about race and politics, not religion and politics.
To me, it seems that the information in that paragraph is rather misleading and dubiously relevant to the article as a whole. I guess my question is, what information is this article intended to communicate, why is that information important, and how can we ensure that it is not easily misinterpreted by the average reader? -- LWG talk 03:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
the solution is to specify how many liberal white evangelicals there are. Black politics is dominated by evangelical preachers (Adam Clayton Powell, ML King, Jesse Jackson, etc etc) so the religious theme is central. As for "non-evangelical blacks" --there are not a lot of them. Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it'd be better to move the mention of Balcks to "demographics", then, as it was not immediately clear to me that the article was trying to say that most Blacks are evangelicals. What do you think about the first point? It seems to me that the numbers essentially boil down to "while Evangelicals have many different political viewpoints, they are significantly more likely than the general population to be conservative."
but it's much more than " significantly more likely". It's an energized, activist powerful force that you see in the 2012 Santorum vote...the liberal evangelicals exist in surveys bit they are not organized, & not a force to be noticed. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
They aren't organized, by they are nonetheless not a "small group", since they evidently represent nearly a third or evangelicals. The subject of the organized right is addressed in the paragraph above. Having addressed the presence of that movement, the rest of the demographics are not that different from those of the nation as a whole. -- LWG talk 15:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If you look at political activists, I suggest (based on the media coverage) that (among white evangelicals) conservatives outnumber liberals 10 to 1. Rjensen (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I now understand that that is the intent behind that section, but that is now how it reads as currently written. The phrasing "Not all evangelicals are on the right. There is a small group of liberal white evangelicals." seems to be talking about the demographics of the religious group (which is what this article is about), not the demographics of a subset of political activists (which is not what this article is about). The issue of Black evangelicals remains as well: I still don't see how a statement about the political and religious views of a racial group is relevant to an article about a religious group. -- LWG talk 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I see the ambiguities that bothered LWG. So I rephrased the section to make clear it's totally about political activism. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Overly americano-centric?[edit]

Having just read through this article, I found it to be overwhelmingly american-centered, both in content and in tone. The entire section about evangelical influence win politics is entirely concerned with American politics. While this isn't awful, it does seem a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics section[edit]

The section on the politics of Evangelicals needs to have a intro section that explain the make-up politically of evangelicals which currently is a majority on the right (Christian Right) and a minority on the left (Christian Left). You could also maybe explain in that section how many Evangelicals on both sides the the political spectrum are often heavily involved in politics. Then have the individual sections on each political subgroup as sub-sections. As it stands, the article seems to assume that the reader knows that most Evangelicals are right-wing/politically conservative. -- (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad bad bad![edit]

The more I read it and learn about real evangelicals, the less I like the article as being inaccurate and misleading. Take for example the first sentence:

Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement

Is it, really? Actually, I believe it is a label formed from Latin "evangelium" (gospel), meaning approximately "gospel-centric". North European lutherans use to prefer the term "evangelical church" rather than "lutheran church". Those who fulfill the definition:

  • The need for personal conversion, or being "born again"
  • A high regard for biblical authority (interpreted as a general rejection of historical-critical interpretations),
  • An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ
  • Actively expressing and sharing the gospel

are rather charismatic and/or fundamentalists, than evangelicals. I believe this is label application number one as refered to in section Meaning of Evangelicalism, which is strictly separate from the self-labeled evangelicals (application number three) in the same section. That section seems to be somewhat accurate, and the rest of the article needs to be rewritten to reflect the various uses of the label "evangelical". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The article does not need to be re-written and nothing is bad or even two- or three-times bad. The definitions are accurate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

American Evangelicalism[edit]

This article has a whole section referring to one country. I think we need to create a separate article "Evangelicalism in the United States" so that the article can become more global in scope, and a greater level of detail added to the new article. Anyone else? Hyper3 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the view of both Americans and non-Americans is that evangelicalism is primarily an American phenomenon, and it represents the specifically American form that Protestantism has taken in the United States. (This is not to say that it did not have antecedents in Europe, which the article notes.)
So personally, I expect an article called "Evangelicalism" to be largely about evangelicalism in the United States, and would find there being two separate articles, one for American evangelicalism and one for evangelicalism "in general", confusing. – Herzen (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This is plain wrong. please read any basic text on the subject. Hyper3 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There are several Evangelicals in the United Kingdom, not the least of whom are Steve Chalke, Nicky Gumbel and John Stott (see Evangelical Alliance and Evangelicalism in the Church of England). There are also many in Germany, where the term "Evangelical" was first coined by Luther. It may be in other European countries as well, but I am not as well acquainted with those groups. It is a larger movement than just in the United States but the editors here may be American and are writing on the subject that they know. The article could be expanded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
And I completely forgot Australia, New Zealand and South Africa! Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Dispensational premillennialism, the theology of most evangelicals, was invented in Britain, so it should not be surprising that there are evangelicals in the UK. I know that Luther coined the term, but the Lutheran church has absolutely nothing to do with evangelicalism in the sense of the word that this article is about, since the Lutheran church is one of the two liturgical Protestant churches (the other one being the Anglican church), not to mention its being an established church in European countries.
I don't think it's just a matter of the editors being American: evangelicalism is much more influential in America than it is in any other country. (For example, when the news media want to get the opinion of a "Christian" leader, they almost invariably turn to an evangelical.) This is not to say that the article shouldn't be expanded, to include coverage of evangelicalism in the UK and Australia, for example. (But an article on British Conservative Evangelicalism already exists.) I don't see why the American section needs to be spun off before the article gets expanded. If and when the article gets unwieldy, then one can do the split. Unless there are some relevant explicit WP rules I don't know about. – Herzen (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Evangelicalism is a historical movement, that has influenced the whole world. It began in the UK. To associate it too closely with the US in isolation is a mistake. (Just because more people play cricket in India than in the UK doesn't change its historical roots, for example.) This article currently shows no real understanding of Evangelicalism as a historical world-wide movement by making the obvious error of associating it with the US too much. This needs to be changed. Hyper3 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Happy to do it. Just giving the heads up. Hyper3 (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The movement did not originate in England, merely one strand of dispensationalist theology. The movement c 1910 in the US brought together numerous different strands and is properly credited as an American movement by the RS. Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
If evangelicalism began anywhere, it began in Germany, with Pietism. The article already makes this clear. The German Wikipedia article is pretty good, by the way. Significantly, the only country other than Germany that it treats at great length is the U.S. Thus, German Wikipedia, too, treats evangelicalism as being primarily American. – Herzen (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Pietism itself was only one part of evangelicalism. No matter where it originated, it is not simply an American movement. David Bebbington rights an entire book on English evangelicalism: Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. So, by the 1730s it was at least a phenomenon on both sides of the Atlantic. Today, of course, it is much broader than either England or America and most evangelicals today are outside of America. Ltwin (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If it's true that most evangelicals today are outside of America, then that's like there being more Catholics in South America today than in Europe. I would say that evangelicalism's "most formative years" occurred in America, in the same way that Catholicism's "most formative years" occurred in Europe.
I think it would be a good idea to expand this article to make clearer that evangelicalism is a worldwide phenomenon. I would just prefer the specifically American section not to get spun out until the article gets unwieldy.
Also, I'm curious: do you know if outside of America, evangelicals are against abortion? Because American evangelicals only came out against abortion in the 1970s, as the article makes clear. – Herzen (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I will say that not all evangelicals (that is, theologically conservative protestants) subscribe to dispensationalism. Lutherans and nearly all Calvinists reject that theology, and they certainly consider themselves to be evangelical. So using the adherence to dispensationalism as a criterion for determining who is evangelical is fallacious. – Confession0791 talk 13:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


Lutherans (together with Anglicans) are well known to be the most theologically liberal Protestants. German Lutherans invented the critical-historical method after all, which evangelicals reacted to when they took their fundamentalist turn. The German Lutheran church may be called die evangelische Kirche, but that has nothing to do with evangelicalism as discussed in this article. Lutheranism is part of what is commonly called mainline Protestantism—which is distinguished from evangelicalism—as are many Calvinist churches. (It is true that there are some Lutheran churches in America that are conservative, but they are atypical: they are not even members of the Lutheran World Federation.)

See the article Mainline Protestant. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is listed there, which means that Lutherans are not evangelicals by definition, in the sense that evangelical is used by Wikipedia. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Reformed Church in America are listed there as well; both are Calvinist.

Reading a little more, I ran into the article on Old Lutherans. When you say that Lutherans are "theologically conservative Protestants", evidently you are thinking of Old Lutherans specifically. – Herzen (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There are Lutheran and Reformed denominations which are conservative. Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Presbyterian Church in America, and Orthodox Presbyterian Church – just to name a few. Not to mention conservative parishioners within those mainline Lutheran and Reformed denominations you just mentioned (in addition to conservatives within other mainline denominations). – Confession0791 talk 19:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
In Canada, there are Evangelical Lutherans (which is where I came to faith) and a recent development in Canada where the Anglican congregation in which I was married separated from the more liberal denomination and first joined the Global South Anglican ( and then was a founding member of Anglican Network in Canada: ( With J. I. Packer as an emeritus pastor of the church, it's hard to imagine that they are at all mainline. It is partnered with Church of England Evangelical Council ( All of the groups consider themselves to be Evangelical and not mainline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
there are lots of Lutherans. They often use the term "Evangelical" as part of their name but in a very different sense than here. "pietist" is the cognate to "evangelical." In the US the two main groups are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) (Scandinavian and some German), which is mainline Protestant and has a pietistic/evangelical history. and the large Missouri Synod & smaller Wisconsin Synod (German)--both of the latter are VERY conservative in theology. In Scandinavia the state churches were high church/liturgical and were opposed by local evangelical/pietistic movements. In Germany it gets complicated--but there was a major pietistic/evangelical movement of which Bismarck was a devout member. Latourette History of Christianity in a Revolutionary Age (5 vol) straightens it all out. Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not making reference to the use of the name but rather the theology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I am noting that "evangelical" has a special meaning for Lutherans and it is very different than the meaning in this article. The pietistic tradition (= "evangelical" as used here) is strong in some but not all Lutheran bodies (it is very weak in Missouri & Wisconsin synods & the official state churches in Scandinavia) Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I was aware that there are conservative/evangelical Lutherans in the U.S.; now you've shown me that they exist in Canada as well. (I must say that I find conservative Lutheranism very hard to understand, since my introduction to Lutheranism was Hegelian philosophy, which in a way is the vanishing point of Christianity, since for Hegel, not only is the Bible not to be taken literally, but the Trinity itself is nothing more than a symbolic representation of his philosophy.) Even if they call themselves evangelical, however, is that really a proper use of the term? Even conservative Lutheran churches are liturgical, and for me, one of the defining features of evangelicalism is that it is not liturgical. To me, calling conservative Lutherans evangelical comes across like calling conservative Catholics "evangelical". After Anglicanism, Lutheranism is the Protestant sect closest to Catholicism, after all.
Given that we now have a Talk section on Lutheranism, should the article say more about conservative Lutherans? I have no idea, but maybe someone else does.
Walter, your user page says that you read German. My impression is that the German article is better than this one, even when it comes to evangelicalism in the U.S. Do you think it's worthwhile to make use of the German article to improve this one? The German article is deficient, however, in that it does not mention that American evangelicalism was postmillennialist until the Civil War. But then, the English language article doesn't mention this either. A key reference on this is George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture:

The characteristic American response to secularization was to bless its manifestations—such as materialism, capitalism, and nationalism—with Christian symbolism.

Postmillennialism, by far the prevalent view among American evangelicals between the Revolution and the Civil War, helped provide the framework for this approach to secularization. Articulated as a distinct view in early eighteenth-century England, postmillennialism was promoted in America during the Great Awakening, notably by Jonathan Edwards. (p. 49)

Given that American evangelicalism is now almost exclusively premillennialist, I really think this needs to be worked into the article. Sorry, I should probably have started a new section about this. – Herzen (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
well I wrote a book about this once (actually parts of a couple chapters) re late 19th century--Richard J. Jensen (1971). Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896. U of Chicago Press. pp. 58–89.  it's all online free  :) Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Lutheran evangelicalism is different than other types of evangelicalism, and we can create a section about the Lutheran use of the term. Now, we need to decide where Reformed evangelicalism fits into this. Keep in mind that most Reformed Christians are not premillennial, and that Calvinism is not particularly liturgical. – Confession0791 talk 06:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that (and for licensing it under a Creative Commons license). I think this is especially relevant to the discussion:

The most revolutionary change in nineteenth-century America was the conversion of the nation from a largely dechristianized land in 1789 to a stronghold of Protestantism by midcentury. The revivals did it. From the 1780s to the early twentieth century uncounted thousands of itinerant preachers-Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples, and others-went to the people, warning of damnation and holding out the promise of salvation....

The revivals induced a theological confrontation that raged throughout the century. Led by Charles Grandison Finney of Oberlin, Nathaniel Taylor of Yale, Edward Park of Andover, and S.S. Schmucker of Gettysburg, the revivalist theologians abandoned the predestination doctrines of orthodox Calvinism and rejected the conservative, established Anglican, Catholic, and Lutheran dogmatism....

The liturgical, or "high church," outlook consisted of much more than simple opposition to revivalism. It stressed the positive values of the institutionalized formalities and historic doctrines of the old orthodoxies, whether Calvinist, Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, or Jewish. Salvation, the focus of all Christianity, required faithful adherence to the creeds, rituals, sacraments, and hierarchy of the church....

Lutherans, whose numbers grew rapidly with the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Germans and Scandinavians, were divided into three camps with semi-independent synods shifting frequently from one camp to another as the tides of theological disputation rose and fell. The liturgical German Lutherans, gathered into the Synodical Conference under the leadership of the Missouri Synod, were the most militant and disputatious religious group in the nation until the rise of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the twentieth century. The pietists, led by the old-stock (formerly "Pennsylvania Dutch") General Synod and the Swedes in the General Council, were thoroughly revivalistic.

I think we can conclude two things from these passages. (1) The revivals were constitutive of evangelicalism. Thus, for a denomination to be considered evangelical, it must be heavily influenced by revivalism. (2) For this reason, conservative Lutherans like the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod are not evangelical in the sense used in this article, even if they themselves think they are. The reason for that is that they were on the liturgical, not the pietist, side. There may still be Lutherans who are evangelical in the strict sense in America or elsewhere, but I don't know who they are. It is possible that they have switched over into other denominations.
The same probably largely goes for Calvinists. The conservative American Calvinists (I forget the denomination they belonged to) I have known were very somber, and did not have that "born again" (conversion experience) attitude at all, which I think is central to evangelicalism.
The overall lesson here is that being Protestant and theologically and/or socially conservative is not a sufficient condition for being evangelical. And I guess a corollary of that is that denominations considered to be "mainline Protestant" are not necessarily liberal (although most of them are). I think it's a common view in North America that "evangelical" is the same thing as "conservative Protestant", but that is just because Americans tend not to know their own history. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should offer a deeper understanding of "evangelical". – Herzen (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism states that Evangelicalism originated from a fusion of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and Puritanism in the 18th century. When Lutherans say they are "evangelicals", they are referring to an older sense of the word that emerged in the Protestant Reformation. What they are not saying is that they are part of Evangelicalism. The purpose of this article is Evangelicalism, not every Christian group who simply attaches "evangelical" to their name. Therefore, unless we're talking about a Lutheran group that explicitly identifies with Evangelicalism rather than "evangelical" they are not our concern, unless we are explaining how the word "evangelical" became associated with what is now Evangelicalism. This article should only focus on churches and Christians that are part of Evangelicalism. This would exclude most Lutherans and other Protestants unless they identified with Evangelicalism. Ltwin (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Hyper3 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Do we agree that conservative Calvinism is a part of evangelicalism under the definition we're using here? – Confession0791 talk 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I would include at least some varieties of conservative Calvinism among Evangelicalism. There are basically two wings to the Evangelical movement: the Reformed wing (Calvinists) and the Wesleyan/Holiness/Pentecostal wing. The scholar Donald Dayton was interviewed by Modern Reformation about the two wings, "Are Charismatic-Inclined Pietists the True Evangelicals? And Have the Reformed Tried to Highjack Their Movement?". We can see by looking at the membership list of the National Association of Evangelicals that several Presbyterian bodies are represented, including the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches in America, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America. Ltwin (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, that membership list would seem to clinch the issue. Also, I followed the link for the last church mentioned, and it is described there as "Evangelical in spirit". – Herzen (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable gutting of article[edit]

This series of edits is entirely an entirely unacceptable solution to the problem. Removing all referenced material about American evangelicalism because none exists about the movement internationally is not a solution. I plan to revert shortly unless a good reason can be provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ‎Walter Görlitz Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I have separated out the US material from that which could define the global movement. All the US material can be found at Evangelicalism in the United States. I willl oppose all edits that are not footnoted, although it would be best if we could all cooperate. My PhD is in Evangelical history and ecclesiology, and the article as it stands is (IMHO) highly misleading, particularly because it confuses American culture wih World Evangelical history. This might possibly become a decent article if the two things can be separated. Please don’t just revert: positively edit using reliable sources. Hyper3 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
You did it without discussion and making such a change without discussion is not being a positive editor. I still plan to revert, both articles now. The key is that it's your opinion, no matter how humble and without linking to that article you're creating an awful mess. It's bad practice, it's bad behaviour, and it's almost bad faith. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. I did discuss it, see section above. And Walter, YOU TOLD ME TO DO IT! WP:SOFIXIT was your response. Hyper3 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above was not about removing the material related to the American elements, it was about bringing balance into the article by introducing elements from around the world. My exact wording was "This article currently shows no real understanding of Evangelicalism as a historical world-wide movement by making the obvious error of associating it with the US too much." So if you think that we bring WP:BALANCE into the article by removing that to which you object, you're wrong. If you want to read into the discussion your opinion, don't. The fact that you have still not linked to the article is even further evidence that you object to the material entirely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The material is preserved at Evangelicalism in the United States. I do not object to it per se. It is just too much about the US in a globally important article. Whilst it does need work, I'm sure an accurate article can be developed. The whole conversation was about splitting the material in two. You encouraged me to do it. But now, not? Sigh. Hyper3 (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your edits. There was consensus for rounding the article out, as Walter Görlitz notes, but NOT for spinning the section about American evangelicalism out BEFORE new material about evangelicalism outside of the U.S. has been added.
You appear to have an idiosyncratic view of evangelicalism, stemming perhaps from WP:NOR, to judge from your user page. – Herzen (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
re: "The whole conversation was about splitting the material in two". Which conversation were you participating in? I never once saw the term split or any synonym for it. I saw a discussion focused on the over-emphasis on the American milieu being over-emphasized but no suggestion that you or anyone was going to remove it and move it into a different article. In short, we should discuss evangelicalism in all regions of the world here not in individual articles. If this article becomes too large, then we can discuss moving the elements out into new articles. Hyper3's action was the correct one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
In Hyper3's first entry on this Talk page, he wrote: "we need to create a separate article 'Evangelicalism in the United States'". I explicitly responded to that several times by saying that a separate article should not be created (spun out) until this article is rounded out and then, only if this article gets too large. Nobody else responded to Hyper3's proposal for a split one way or the other; they just supported the idea of rounding the article out, as I did. – Herzen (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I stand (or more correctly, sit) corrected. Agreed that no one else supported a split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


This article has many faults. I spent several hours writing new material to correct some of them. I understand that you might decide to reintegrate the US material, but just reverting and losing properly sourced edits is crude and unworthy of serious Wikipedians. Hyper3 (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I too am totally amazed, but not by the wholesale revert, but by your claim at innocence and feigned outrage. You removed material against the will of everyone else and then you cry foul when someone reverts your material. Feel free to restore the new material, with references, but try not to trod on existing material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to mention false indignation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not innocent of WP:BOLD. When someone tries to improve a page, it is ill-mannered to revert not just the disputed edits but all intervening edits. I consulted clearly, and no one gave a decent answer as to why not. Still there is no decent answer only WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You clearly encouraged me to do it, Walter, although it appears you were not reading the whole conversation. The only way Wikipedia works is if people get on and make the edits, reasoned and sourced responses are made, and then good debate is entered into. Your behaviour here is not to your credit. No one has cleaarly responded to the issue. I will give you and others another chance to be civilised and follow the guidelines. Hyper3 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you mistook my suggestion as an invitation to gut the article. I did read the whole conversation and no one picked up on your suggestion that the material needed to be removed. Not even me. I suggested that you bring balance. Feel free to read it again. I will give you a chance to be civilized and discuss your changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Article not gutted. Split. Hyper3 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Size of article before your edits: 47877 Bytes. Size of article after your edits: 32679. So you're right, it wasn't gutted, just the information about American Evangelicalism was gutted.
No indication in edit summaries where the material went. It took a request to determine where it went: "move North American only observations" (my question was moved to where?), although looking at your edit history one could have determined that. However, the article as you left it gave no indication as to its locations. I'm glad we're planning on globalizing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

World Evangelicalism is compromised by over-emphasis on USA in this article[edit]

Do you agree? Please give reasons that relate to current scholarship. Hyper3 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be. What needs to happen, as was explained above, is that balance needs to be added by adding emphasis to other regions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Please explain how a worldwide faith can be "compromised" by a discussion of it highlighting that faith as it exists in a particular geographical location. It is hard not to read your comment as implying that American evangelicalism suffers from some fault or faults that evangelicalism elsewhere does not suffer from.
Also, to repeat a point I've made before, the German article on evangelicalism has about as much information on evangelicalism in America as the English language article does. (The difference is that it, unsurprisingly, has a considerable amount of material on German evangelicalism as well.) In fact, it looks at the history of evangelicalism in America (not concerned with politics) at greater length than the English language article does.
I am American but not an evangelical, by the way, and I am more sympathetic to liturgical than to evangelical churches. So it's not as if I'm a "defender" of American evangelicalism.
You need to provide "reasons" for why treating American evangelicalism in the general article on evangelicalism "compromises" the article. Again, that is what the German article does, and I don't see it being "compromised" in any way. – Herzen (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The article should be about Evangelicalism, not US Evangelicalism. To give the impression that Evangelicalism is basically an American phenomenon is wrong. Hyper3 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote that "Evangelicalism is basically an American phenomenon." I suppose that that was a tendentious and unfortunate formulation. What I had in mind was that during certain periods at least, there has been more "evangelical activity" in the U.S. than in other countries, for two reasons: (1) the U.S. has no established church; (2) the U.S. experienced a Westward expansion, which meant people settled into areas in which there were no traditional churches. Also, I would say that Evangelicalism is the "most American" religion, although of course that doesn't imply that Evangelicalism is "primarily American".
I haven't looked at your recent changes closely, but you seem to be in the process of making the article less American-centric, and I have absolutely no problems with that.
I still believe that splitting the American-specific passages into another article, while it may involve less work, goes against the spirit of Evangelicalism (indeed, of Christianity itself), because there is a desire among evangelicals to "be together with other Christians" in as universal a way as possible. (Sorry, that's another bad formulation on my part.) For that reason, I think it would be wrong to "banish" American evangelicals to their own article.
If you believe that the social/political views of American evangelicals are not shared by evangelicals elsewhere, we can discuss the possibility of spinning out passages about the politics of Ąmerican evangelicals to another article. For example, are most non-American evangelicals against abortion? – Herzen (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Herzen, I think you are confusing evangelism with Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is a historical movement that has certain theological features; evangelism is the attempt to recruit others to Christian faith.
Do you think, that we should import British Conservative Evangelicalism or Open evangelical into this article? I don’t think so. We cannot gather all Evangelical related articles into one place: we do however need one good umbrella article that summarises its nature. Roughly a quarter of Evangelicals are in the US; (a figure hard to pin down). The inclusion of one country's contemporary material and not others gives the impression that it has greater priority in history and definition, when it doesn't. Hyper3 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Gather all references to the USA into one section[edit]

My proposal. Any problems with that? Hyper3 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's too vague. What exactly does that mean? How do you plan to implement it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Move all material clearly relating to the current US situation into a section of its own; this would not include the historical material that relates to the understanding of Evangelicalism as a historical movement.Hyper3 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It's already in a section on its own. Being vague is not an asset at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The only way to be specific is to do it. So I have started. Hyper3 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Need some logic to section organization[edit]

I was asked my opinion, but I'm not sure on what exactly I'm being asked to discuss. I know its something about the US content, but this discussion has become unwieldy to read on the talk page. Anyway, one thing that could be changed is this strange article layout. Putting aside the USA section, we have a "Meaning of Evangelicalism" section which consists of nothing but a block quote and a subsection on adherents. Why does the adherents section need to be a sub-category of this strange section? Then we have a "Contemporary North American perspective" section which I don't know why this needs to exist. Can't we place the information in both the "Meaning of Evangelicalism" and "Contemporary North American perspective" sections somewhere else. We have sections already that can cover all of this information.

In addition to the "Adherents" section, we have a "Global demographics" section. This makes no sense. The "Adherents" section is a mess. It features American statistics, but the USA section has its own "Demographics" subsection. Then it goes on to talk about Evangelical inroads into Iraq, which I'm sure is an interesting topic, but why does it belong in the "Adherents" section. One thing I will do is rewrite this section ASAP. The "Global demographics" section is poorly sourced. I'm going to combine these two section, and try to make some sense out of it if that's ok.

I'm of the opinion that Evangelicalism in the United State is important and full enough of a topic to merit its own article. We could take the current section and make that the basis of such an article. Then we could summarize the content in this article. However, if editors feel that currently there is no need to make a US Evangelicalism article right now, I wouldn't be too strongly against that.

Is anyone against me or someone else if they want to help coming up with a more logical outline that eliminates some of these unneeded sections? Ltwin (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ltwin thanks for your opinion. I think we should do what you suggest. Hyper3 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


Am I the only editor who believes that the tagging of this article with {{Globalize}} and the removal of referenced material related to evangelicals in Iraq by the same editor to be incongruous? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Evangelicals are making inroads all over what used to be called the Third World. Singling out Iraq, like that bit of text did, came across as strange to me, and it isn't exactly helpful to interfaith relations, since that case of evangelizing appears to have been the byproduct of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by two Protestant countries.
Again, comparison with the German article is useful here. It has a section on Verbreitung (how something is distributed across something—once again, English lacks the equivalent for a German word), divided into regions. If we did something like that here, we could mention Iraq again. – Herzen (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, English does have an equivalent for Verbreitung—dispersion. But my German/English dictionary doesn't mention it. – Herzen (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Verbreitung is probably better translated as "dissemination". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Broad view[edit]

I added a quote from Balmer to the lede that gives a very broad overview, & emphasized the German (Pietist), Scottish (Presby.) and English (Puritan) while paying attention to Hispanics etc.: Balmer says that, "Evangelicalism itself, I believe, is quintessentially North American phenomenon, deriving as it did from the confluence of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and the vestiges of Puritanism. Evangelicalism picked up the peculiar characteristics from each strain – warmhearted spirituality from the Pietists (for instance), doctrinal precisionism from the Presbyterians, and individualistic introspection from the Puritans – even as the North American context itself has profoundly shaped the various manifestations of evangelicalism.: fundamentalism, neo-evangelicalism, the holiness movement, Pentecostalism, the charismatic movement, and various forms of African-American and Hispanic evangelicalism. [cite Randall Balmer, The Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism] Rjensen (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, Hyper3 deleted this addition. I have reverted it back.
I believe the lede should give a basic understanding of what Evangelicalism is, and without that Balmer quote, it does not. I do not see anything objectionable about the Balmer quote. In his edit summary, Hyper3 again asserts that Evangelicalism is "a worldwide phenomenon". I do not see how the Balmer quote contradicts that. A phenomenon can be both worldwide and "quintessentially North American". – Herzen (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
That may be, but the article needs summarising further then: new material is for the body, not the lede. Hyper3 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The lede should not contain new material[edit]

Please follow the guidelines [WP:CITELEAD]]. Hyper3 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Balmer misrepresented[edit]

Balmer clearly states in his book "The Making of Evangelicalism: From Revivalism to Politics and Beyond" page 2 that "the American form of Evangelicalism is peculiarly, well, American, and it is derived..." it goes on to make the same statement. No scholar will claim that Evangelicalism is American in itself. Hyper3 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking again at the two places he uses a similar turn of phrase, I believe he corrects his 2004 mis-statement in 2010 with a more precise formulation of it. Hyper3 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it would be helpful if you briefly explained how you think American evangelicalism is different from evangelicalism elsewhere. (And keep in mind that we are dealing with the English Wikipedia, and, as far as I know, the country with the greatest number of native English speakers is the U.S.) I have asked you several times to do that. If we all have a shared idea of how American evangelicalism differs from evangelicalism elsewhere or evangelicalism "in general", it would be easier for us to settle on how to proceed.
From the German article, I know that they had revivals in Germany. That suggests to me that there is a "native" German evangelicalism. However, when it is mentioned that evangelicalism is a "worldwide phenomenon", I think what is usually meant is that there is an increasing number of evangelicals in the Third World. But that is due to proselytizing by American evangelicals. So Third World evangelicals are to all intents and purposes American evangelicals, are they not?
I suppose there are "native" evangelicals in Britain, as there are in Germany. But whereas in the U.S., evangelicals are the largest Christian group, I'm pretty sure that evangelicals make up a small minority in all European countries, simply because all European countries have established churches, or have had until recently. (France being the major exception, but I haven't heard about any French evangelicals LOL.) So there is that. When you look at the West (in the sense of Europe and North America), the vast majority of evangelicals are located in North America. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) For that reason too, it is not inappropriate to "highlight" American evangelicalism in this article. – Herzen (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Rjensen seems to be answering my question with his recent edits to the article. As for the Balmer quote in the lede, perhaps the lede can be tweaked so that it doesn't produce any false impressions. But I think it is better to keep the Balmer quote as is, even though it may not be optimal, than to remove it, because I think it's essential to mention the three influences on evangelicalism in the lede. Perhaps a sentence or two can be added after the quote to distinguish English evangelicalism from the American variety? – Herzen (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I quoted Ballmer at length from the 2nd revised edition of his encyclopedia and he did not change his mind. how about adding this, , which in 2010 he said applies to the whole world: Essential to evangelicalism says Ballmer is first to embrace biblical inspiration, second the centrality of the born again conversion experience, and finally the impulse to evangelize and bring the Word to everyone. Randall Balmer, The Making of Evangelicalism (2010) p 2 Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • American Evangelicalism shares much with Evangelicalism elsewhere. Evangelicalism is not in itself American, however, and should not be portrayed as such. This is my main point. About a quarter of Evangelicals are found in the US. The worldwide family of Evangelicals is shaped by its members, which includes Americans, bit it is not, in itself, American.
  • I do not understand why you think the definition of Evangelicalism would change based on the language it is described in.
  • By your logic, we are all Jews, because the first Christians were Jews.
  • The whole point of much mission these days is to inculturate the gospel locally. In more recent times the US has sent many missionaries, but earlier in the 20th century, it was Germany and the UK who sent the most.
  • I understand that the article should contain references to US Evangelicalism, but not in the detail it currently does. Yet reducing useful information to a summary would lose much; the current material would be best deployed in a separate article. So much of it simply does not apply to the other 3/4 of the world's Evangelicals, yet this was misleadingly implied by the article until we started this dialogue. Hyper3 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
All this belongs in the first section not in the lede. Please read the guidelines. WP:CITELEAD The lede should not include new information but should summarise the whole article. Hyper3 (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Not true-- what passage of WP:CITELEAD do you mean???? it says quotes in lede need a citation Rjensen (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - WP:MOSINTRO Hyper3 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The current lede does a VERY BAD job of this duty: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Many people only read the lede. they will learn zero. Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Lets do something about it. You summarise a few paragraphs and so will I. Hyper3 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I brought up language is that since this is English WP, many readers will be American, so they will naturally be interested in learning about American evangelicalism in particular. That's completely the same thing as the German WP devoting a lot of attention to German evangelicalism, which the English article does not do. This article is not that long. Therefore, I don't see how it can contain too much information on US evangelicals. The way to obtain "balance" is to add material on non-US evangelicals, until the article gets overly long, not to remove material on US evangelicals.
POSSIBLE COMPROMISE. I notice that the sections "Politics" and "Recurrent themes" seem to be exclusively about contemporary US evangelicalism as it relates to politics and social issues. There is really no religious or theological content in those sections: it's all politics. Therefore, I would not mind if those two sections were spun out into another article: but that article would not be about US evangelicalism in general, but specifically about US evangelicalism as it relates to politics. – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
POSSIBLE COMPROMISE 2 To the extent that US Evangelicalism is significant to world Evangelicalism, (it is important) it should remain in the article. To the extent that aspects of US Evangelicalism are not relevant to World Evangelicalism, these should be developed further in a spin off article. I think it should be called Evangelicalism in the United States and all aspects of United States Evangelicalism should receive greater attention and be developed further, whilst being summarised in this broader umbrella article. Hyper3 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's easy to decide which "aspects of US Evangelicalism are... relevant to World Evangelicalism" and which are not. You seem to have definite views on this subject, but those of others may differ. (Again, German WP is able to discuss evangelicalism in different regions in the same article without running into problems.) Whether an issue involves politics or not is much easier to decide. – Herzen (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Americans are insular enough already as a people. I think harm would be done by creating a separate article for evangelicalism in America, creating the impression that American evangelicals somehow stand apart from the rest. To say it once more, the article is not so long that parts of it need to be moved elsewhere. If people aren't interested in American evangelicalism, they can simply skip the parts about it. If evangelicalism is a global phenomenon as you say, then American evangelicalism is part of that phenomenon. – Herzen (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
None of this is easy. It is only safeguarded by the crowd-sourcing basis of the enterprise. I don’t have definite ideas from this point on, only that from the point of view of a world evangelical, this article is too US-centric (and I am half-American by blood). If we agree on the principle of one over-arching article that defines Evangelical, and other articles that address Evangelicalism in greater detail based on further qualification (like geography, politics, sector, movement etc) I think we have a workable agreement. Much about US Evangelicalism, including politics should remain in summary form. It still needs dealing with in detail in the context of the whole Encyclopedia project, but probably in its own space. Hyper3 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It's well balanced in terms of the RS, which focuses 90% of attention of US/britain/Canada. It takes many decades to develop scholars and so the next generation of Wikipedians or the one after that will have material to work with. Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Evangelicalism v. Fundamentalism[edit]

I reluctantly removed the following widely-quoted sentences, since according to this excerpt from WHAT IS THE EMERGING CHURCH?, Cloud's quote applies to the early-21st century "emerging church" rather than to the mid-20th century evangelical/fundamentalist division. Leaving it here is misleading, as if the quote came from 1950 instead of 2011. The next passage, about self-described fundamentalists, adequately expresses the displeasure of some in the mid-20th century.

Not all conservatives are pleased with the new direction. One author has termed it "the apostasy within evangelicalism".[1]

Mdmcginn (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Odd phrasing[edit]

In the United States section, at the end of the 20th century subsection, this article contains the following odd phrasing: "Having destroyed Nazi Germany and fascist Japan, the newly mobilized Evangelicals..." This gives the impression that Germany and Japan were defeated by roving gangs of evangelical missionaries rather than, say, armies. Could an expert please revise this statement to more clearly express the historical phenomena the article is trying to discuss? I would, but not being an expert in this area, I am not sure what precisely the original editor was trying to say about evangelicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Photo[edit]

The photo of Jesus Christ used in this article is Anglican more then Protestant. Evangelicals do not believe in Jesus having deity, or a halo, while on earth. Most would also agree we do not know what exactly he looked like, but it was most likely darker skinned. This photo is not as good for this article as an empty cross would be, being as that is the mainstream belief of where salvation was started. I hereby move that this image be replaced with one more appropriate. 2602:306:CD1E:B200:C4A5:EB7B:BDEF:6243 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Anglicans are Protestant (and the correct word is than not then) and I attended an Anglican congregation that was, and still is, very evangelical. The Alpha Course was started by an evangelical Anglican congregation in London, Holy Trinity Brompton.
Evangelicals do believe in the divinity of Jesus while on earth. Anything else would be considered heresy. There are a lot of denominations involved so one cannot paint them with such broad strokes, or with a particular form of iconography.
As for "where salvation started", again, that's not as easy to paint as well. It could be argued as starting at the incarnation, Jesus' earthly ministry or at the resurrection. The empty cross may not be any more appropriate than the current image.
I'm not opposed to discussing a change in image, but it should be done with fact-based arguments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
From what I understand, Anglicans consider themselves the "via media" — neither Catholic nor Protestant. But, even RC don't believe he had an actual "halo" over his head. That's just symbolic. — Confession0791 talk 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
What is the halo symbolic of? (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Your understanding of Anglicanism is not correct. They do consider themselves protestant. They were formed out of the protestant reformation. However, there are "high Anglicans", who align themselves more closely to Catholic forms of liturgy and "low Anglicans", who distance themselves from it. However, that has nothing to do with their theology, which is firmly protestant in nature. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing about this depiction that would offend most evangelicals. This is a dispute over nothing. Ltwin (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And of course, it's not a photo. But also - it's not specific to the article. It is part of the Christianity template, and discussion about the picture should be held at Template talk:Christianity. As for this article, the template certainly belongs. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
We all realize it is not a photo, but a drawing. Thank you for helping us. Now back to it. Show me one example of an Evangelical using such a photo? Seems to me something of this nature would be found in a Catholic church, Not a baptist church. If this is used for the blanket term "Christianity" then that is its own issue. However when i go to view "catholic church", this image does not display there. So I would say this is an issue if this image would not be used by a denomination fitting the evangelical label.2602:306:CD1E:B200:6D6F:F467:B55B:B844 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It may be an issue, but as I said - not for this page. StAnselm (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not a drawing either, it's a photo of a stained glass window.
So now it's Catholic and not Anglican. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Its not Protestant. 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute . . . you mean there is a rule that Evangelical churches can't have stained glass windows depicting Christ? Oops. I need to call my local Fist Church of the Nazarene and First Baptist. Boy do they have some renovations to undergo. Who knew they had it wrong this whole time . . . :) Ltwin (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
next time you go by, see if Christ has a halo. 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
All you've managed to do is assert your opinion of what is Protestant and what is Evangelicalism. You've offered absolutely no sources that say that all Protestants or all Evangelicals vigorously reject the use of halos in their depictions of Christ. Sorry to inform you, but you don't get to decide what all Evangelicals believe about halos. Ltwin (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:AGF let start with proof that halos are widely used by evangelicals. Your saying keep the current photo, so where is your proof that they DO use them. I have personally been to Baptist, Pentecostal, Brothern, CoG, sothern Baptist, black Pentecostal, and have not one time seen Jesus Christ, with a halo. If something is not in wide spread use within Evangelical churches, why would it be used as the title photo (drawing, painting, photo, color by numbers(not the issue here))? I can propose many different, widespread images these churches use. None that I have personally seen in 40-50 churches I have visited have had a halo. In fact some consider the image (drawing, painting, photo, color by numbers, carving, statue) idolatry. A non-Jesus artistic rendition would be better. (as there are no actual photos of Jesus that are 100% positive). 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not the "title photo" of the article. It's a picture at the top of a box that states, "Part of a series on Christianity" which is designed to give encyclopedia readers a convenient guide to some important Christianity topics. As a Pentecostal myself, I can tell you that most evangelicals don't give a flying flip if Jesus Christ is drawn with a halo or not. Ltwin (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Then I would recommend we insert a title photo above this box.2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If this crusade against haloed Jesus is as important to you as it seems, you can always go to Template talk:Christianity and revive the discussion over the picture there. This is not the place to discuss this picture. Ltwin (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I would consider it a fine photo for the term "Christianity" as there are arguably more Catholics then there are Evangelicals; And they call themselves "Christians" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm amused by your arguments but not by your grammar, spelling or logic. I'm sorry, this is not an informed opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional paragraph for 2.1 current usage[edit]

I would suggest a paragraph between Billy Graham and the last paragraph.

Some evangelicals argue for an even broader definition of the term evangelical. Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen claim that "Evangelicals are people of the Great Commission."[2] They further argue against caricatures of evangelicals as many are not inerrantists, Republicans, Calvinists, or anti-evolutionists.

I am a student researcher for Dr. Thorsen, so do not want to add it to the document myself. Klfkyle (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

There was a recent edit apparently by the UK Evangelical Alliance which was reverted on COI grounds (also the username is against policy and has been blocked). I've undone the revert as I think this is a case where common sense is needed and the edit did improve the article. The statistics that were added were sourced with reference to a survey whereas the previous version of the paragraph contained an unsourced statistic and a dead link. I also don't think that WP:COI technically applies as the edit did not advance the editor's interests above those of Wikipedia. Whilst the survey was commissioned by the Evangelical Alliance itself, I do not believe its results are disputed or contentious. For completeness I have no connection with the Evangelical Alliance myself. SmilingFace (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I too agree. If the information is sourced, and the source is not a primary one, then it's not a COI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SmilingFace and Walter Görlitz: I saw no COI. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I should add, it was not at all promotional. not sure how it was a CoI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it appeared to be the Evangelical Alliance adding the results of its own survey, so you could argue there's a CoI, and we must assume good faith on the part of the editor who deleted it. But the edit would have been same had anyone else made it, and I consider the survey to be a reliable source, so I didn't see a problem. There can obviously be some situations where an organisation commissions a biased survey for the purposes of self-promotion or agenda-pushing, but this isn't one of them - the edit actually significantly reduced the estimated number of evangelicals in the UK! SmilingFace (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Cloud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Wilkens, Steve; Thorsen, Don (2010). Everything you know about Evangelicals is wrong. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. p. 198.