Talk:Mainline Protestant

African American Baptist Churches

Since there is a mention of the three main African American Methodist denominations, should there be a mention of the three main African American Baptist denominations: National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, Progressive National Baptist Convention? Is any of the three considered mainline (by the stardands of the Methodist ones)? If any, then the other(s), if any, could be mentioned in the later paragraph of related non-mainline. Coquidragon (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

2 History Sections

There are 2 sections titled "history" that are both good sections that both have different content. I'm not sure whether it would be better to write one section that combines both or to rename them to make it more clear what their content is about. Isaac Lemmen (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Isaac Lemmen, yes this needs to be fixed. The first section isn't really a proper history; it's more like recent demographic trends. I will change the name of this section. Ltwin (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it would be best to spread this content around article as there are already other sections this material can fall into. Ltwin (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

EP Sanders on Liberal Protestantism

@Indyguy has claimed that my quotation of EP Sanders does not support my contention that Liberal Protestantism represents a break from the values of the Historical Jesus. However, the quote is clear that Jesus did not preach the values Liberal mainline churches like the one he was part of preaches.

"I am a liberal, modern, secularized Protestant, brought up in a church dominated by low christology and the social gospel. I am proud of the things that that religious tradition stands for. I am not bold enough, however, to suppose that Jesus came to establish it, or that he died for the sake of its principles." Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate any feedback from other editors. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what "the values of the Historical Jesus" means, and I do not understand why EP Saunders would have to be in the lead of Liberal Christianity. Plus, in Mainline Protestant you wrote that he was "one of the most respected Biblical scholars of the past 50 years"--well, I don't know about that. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"The values" are simply what Jesus preached. I already see that Sander's quote does not need to be in the lead. Silverfish2024 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a little presumptuous to claim to know the values of the historical Jesus. That works better as a meme on social media than in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There is an entire field of research by scholars trying to understand just who the historical Jesus was, and there are already widely agreed upon results. (Crucifixion, Baptism, Apocalypticism, etc.) In this case Sanders contrasts the historical Jesus understood in a scholarly manner with the views many mainline churches espouse. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sanders was extraordinarily influential compared to his peers. He revolutionized multiple fields of study while most scholars only touch their own.

Here is a memorial post by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman on Sanders' impact

A Truly Great New Testament Scholar: E. P. Sanders in Memoriam - The Bart Ehrman Blog Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The quotation itself says nothing about the Historical Jesus, and it seems to be talking about Sander's personal perspective without any indication that it is a generally held idea by others in the field of study. Perhaps he says more about it in his book, but as it stands, the quotation is just not enough. Indyguy (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Sanders only mentions Jesus; however, taken in context, it is clear the subject is equivalent to the historical Jesus and that the quote would not make sense if it were referring to some sort of "theological Christ" that Bible scholars like to claim stands apart from the historical. The quotation is very clear on its own.

Sanders is a highly respected scholar to say the least, so this quote should not be removed whether or not other scholars support it or not (I cannot think of any who would dare say that the Historical Jesus would be in line with mainline Protestantism). There has indeed been backlash against the Protestant influences still present in New Testament studies. Silverfish2024 (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the quote presented by User:Silverfish2024 belongs in the article and moreover, I think that most mainline Protestants would disagree with it. Mainline Protestants would teach that they seek to emulate the values of love and service that Jesus emphasized. Anupam^Talk 23:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, though you may correct me on this, Wikipedia is focused on presenting academic information, not what laypeople claim. I added Sanders's quote because he was a Biblical scholar, not because he was a mainline Protestant. Could you explain why you think the quote does not belong? It seems perfectly relevant, as I have already discussed above. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Silverfish2024, neither the quote nor the claim belongs in the article. E. P. Sanders was a respected biblical scholar, but his personal opinion of whether the historical Jesus would have approved of a particular Christian movement seems too much like Wikipedia is making a value judgment. It doesn't add any value to the article - which is about Mainline Protestantism and not Sanders' personal opinion of it. In addition, citing one scholar to support a pretty major claim is Wikipedia:UNDUE. Ltwin (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am very glad that somebody has clearly explained why my edit might not be ideal for this page and understands Sanders's standing in scholarship and what Sanders was saying in the quote. That being said, I disagree that my edit implies any sort of value judgment, as it is claiming that Liberal theology is not in line with the Historical Jesus, not that is factually incorrect. For comparison, Wikipedia appears to be fine noting that there no scientific evidence for Noah's flood, or that the Pentateuch does not accurately describe the rise of the Israelites. Would this be a value judgment against Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion? I also wouldn't describe the quote quite as just an opinion, because it is placed deep inside an academically inclined publication that has argued historical analysis can and should be done without the "control of theology" as previous scholars have been wont to do. The quote is necessary to show Sanders is researching outside of the bounds of his personal theology. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Silverfish2024, Sanders' qualifications as a New Testament scholar do not qualify him or anyone else from knowing what the historical Jesus would think about modern Christianity. We don't know what Jesus would or would not think about Mainline Protestantism, and it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to essentially say per Sanders that Mainline Protestantism is contrary to the outlook of the historical Jesus. You mention evidence for the flood or the historicity of the Pentateuch. Those are completely different situations. Wikipedia editors rely on the expertise of reliable sources (biblical scholars, historians, and other academics). A scholar using his or her expertise to analyze the historicity of the Pentateuch is perfectly fine. That same scholar opining on whether or not the historical Moses would approve of the modern State of Israel is stepping outside of his area of expertise and no longer serves Wikipedia as a reliable source. Ltwin (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"We don't know what Jesus would or would not think about Mainline Protestantism"

I'm not sure who else would agree. Is there any source saying scholars cannot draw conclusions about the views, real or hypothetical, about historical figures? Wikipedia argues that many messianic prophecies could not be discussing Jesus (in a literal manner) in its original context per various scholars, and this does not seem to be considered out of line, though some might construe this, rightly or wrongly, as another value judgment against Christianity. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Silverfish2024, the fact is any statement that essentially says Mainline Protestantism contradicts Jesus' teachings and values is going to need a whole lot more support than just one biblical scholar and those sources are going to have to be much more explicit than the quote you provided, which could have several different interpretations. Ltwin (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Ltwin. I might consider a new edit at some later point, perhaps by adding more scholars and shifting the focus to a discussion on the pivotal role of Liberal Protestantism in the founding of critical historical research in 19th Century Germany, as well as modern reception, if I can find good sources. Silverfish2024 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)