Talk:Protestantism

groups of traditions

After a little back and forth between myself and snowded, I've started a new discussion Talk:Christianity#Denominations which may be of interest. Quantpole (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Protestantism and their Reformation Period Brethren

Protestantism did indeed separate itself and be formed from the roman catholic church. under the list of denominations formed during that time includes: Lutherans, Calvanists, etc.

However, history shows that the Baptists were not from the reformation period. they were called the anabaptists when the roman catholic church was formed. but, the bible shows that John the Baptist existed long before the Roman Catholic Church did. It is logical to conclude, with that information in mind, that the Baptists did not sprout away from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation Period as the Protestants did.

(Kinghawke (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Are you actually saying that John the Baptist started the Baptist Church --Sfcongeredwards (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what he appears to be saying, however, REAL history shows that that idea is full of gibberish. The origins of the Baptist church are easily traced back to one man, who certainly didn't live within even 1000 years of John the baptist. That doesn't stop people from saying it though. I've certainly heard it before.Farsight001 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you farsight, saying that john the Baptist founded the Baptists Church is like saying that the Apostolic church(small US based church) was founded by the Apostles --Sfcongeredwards (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] You are in violation of WP:POV and I suggest that you discontinue your accusations of "gibberish". Baptists, if in any succession, are derived from the Anabaptist. The catholic Church of England is derived from the catholic Church of Paul in communion to the Bishop of Rome, commonly, and ignorantly, referred to as the Catholic Church. I suggest that future scholars do reform this draft of an article. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism

The article ought to go at least a little into the question of whether Anglicanism is Protestant. Currently, the map shows England as Protestant, but the lede says Anglicanism is distinct from Protestantism and the article never mentions Anglicanism again. So that's an internal contradiction, and one that may well be confusing to readers unfamiliar with Anglicanism's schizophrenic view of itself. I know it's difficult, because it is non-NPOV both to assert that Anglicanism is Protestant and to assert that it isn't, but the solution is not to have the map make one non-NPOV assertion and the text make the other one. +Angr 05:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe when they repeat the 39 articles? OK Anglicanism has a catholic wing (although with a pattern of desertion over time) but it comes from the Protestant tradition if we are looking at classification. --Snowded ^TALK 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do anyone besides Anglicans argue that Anglicanism is entirely distinct from Protestantism (quite an umbrella term)?

By some measures, there are more Restorationists than Anglicans! How is Anglicanism one of only four traditions, while Restorationism is entirely ignored? Readers need to know what reference is saying that, but the point lacks a citation. In a casual search, I couldn't find a non-Wikipedia secular scholarly reference that said what the article's introduction says.

I've even seen works that group Catholicism with Orthodoxy while separating Restorationism!

--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for all Anglicans, but as an Anglican from England, I've never heard an Anglican disagree with Anglicans being Protestant and I definitely regard myself as a Protestant. Certainly the catalyst for the creation of the CofE was a fat bloke in Rome telling a fat bloke in London that he wasn't allowed to divorce a fat bird from Spain, but the actions of this split were carried out by people who were angry at the wealth of the Catholic church, a view that it had strayed from the humility of Christianity and that it should be Protested. Thus, Anglicanism is a form of Protestantism. It is true that there is the "high church" side of Anglicanism that retains more of the Catholic traditions, and Henry VIII died as an "English Catholic", distinct from "Roman Catholic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 June 2009

From Anglicanism - The earliest Anglican formularies corresponded closely to those of contemporary Reformed Protestantism; but by the end of the 16th century, the retention in Anglicanism of many traditional liturgical forms and of the episcopate was already seen as unacceptable by those promoting the most developed Protestant principles. In the first half of the 17th century the Church of England and associated episcopal churches in Ireland and in England's American colonies were presented by some Anglican divines as comprising a distinct Christian tradition, with theologies, structures and forms of worship representing a middle ground, or via media, between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism; a perspective that came to be highly influential in later theories of Anglican identity. So originally Protestant, via media suggested as early as 17th century, and currently generally used by the modern church. But since it was originally Protestant and since legally the head of the COE must be a Protestant and since Protestant is found in some of the Anglican communion churches to this day, I would encourage it be included in the Protestant group. Nitpyck (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If Anglicanism is halfway between Catholocism and Protestantism then it is protestant, nor Catholic but a distinct branch of Christianity.--Sfcongeredwards (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It claims it is distinct now, but it was not originally, and so still belongs under the group of sects that broke from the Roman church at about the same time or are directly descended from those earlier reformation churches. The Methodists are descended from the Anglican church should they also not be one of the protestant sects?
And I would argue that rejection of the authority of Rome is a wider separation than any differences it may have with the other mainstream Protestant churches (Note however that this is my opinion and therefor not a valid point for the article). But my earlier argument that it was originally and was for centuries considered a protestant church is not disputed.Nitpyck (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an answer here, but it is not a simple one. The Church of England considers itself both Catholic and Reformed, and maintains that it is still part of the 'One True Church' which includes the (Roman) Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Those Churches dispute that this is the case and do not consider the Church of England to be in Communion with them. Many adherents of the Church of England do not consider themselves Protestant. And the formal theology of the Church has a more nuanced appeal to a 'via media' middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the C of E is popularly considered to be 'Protestant' and most (though not all) adherents consider themselves Protestant. It seems, then, that the Church of England, and perhaps broader Anglicanism, are either a) a third branch between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy or b) a part of Protestantism which claim themselves a third branch between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. The real problem here is that, as with many English institutions, the Church of England is a result of a messy compromise betweeen competing tendencies and which therefore prefers to avoid formal labels. Not so useful for an encyclopedia, but there you go! 90.193.97.18 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it should stay in, but simply make its shade on the map a lighter purple than the rest to denote that it presents itself as a via media. To further conflate the issue, pragmatically in a socio-political-cultural context in England, High Church Anglicans and conservative Catholics are often "allies" today in opposition to the positions of Liberal Anglicans and modernist Catholics. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no doubt in anyone's minds about the Church of England being protestant until the Oxford Movement started to question it. The ideas of the Oxford Movement have always been those of a loud minority. This phrase "via media" that keeps popping up is theirs, dragged from the works of Richard Hooker and turned it into an unsupported claim about the nature of the Church of England.

On the basis of these two short foreign words used out of context by a clutch of disaffected nineteenth century academic clerics, the most influential protestant church in the world has been torn out of an article of protestantism!

By all means a note can be made of how some have questioned the protestantism of the Church of England, but it is not a question one can take seriously for long.

Now, how are we going to work the Anglican Communion back into this article?

Howard Alexander (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I might add that if a church cannot be protestant where its liturgy is derived from and modelled on pre-Reformation forms, then the Lutheran churches are not protestant either. Who is for denying that Martin Luther was protestant?! Howard Alexander (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of it, but it is currently after the Oxford Movement, and while the ideas of the Oxford Movement may be a minority in some countries, they are not in others. Nor is this article about the Church of England, nor is the Anglicanism section about the Church of England. Whatever may have once been the truth, it is the case that today there are Anglicans who reject the term Protestant, and while you may think they should go back to the "origins" in the 16th century, they will simply retort that the origins of the Church of England are far older than the 16th century. Tb (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak from familiarity with the Church of England the Church of Ireland of course. I cannot say whether, for example, members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America consider themselves protestant. If there are Anglicans who do not consider themselves protestant, that is a position worthy of mention, but not to the exclusion of the mainstream idea.

I understand the problem with the word "protestant"; it is a party label, when we are all trying to get on with being a representation of the holy, catholic and apostolic church. That is a good reason not to emphasise it, but no reason to shun it if it is accurate.

So, I propose minor changes in the lead, and a new section on Anglicanism, being open about how we disagree.

Can someone put their hands on any quotes from respected Anglican theologians who say that Anglicans or their particular church is not "protestant"? We can then cite those.

Howard Alexander (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to finding sources! But as for the substance of text, I would suggest perhaps wording that indicates simply that the question is controversial. It is certainly agreed that there was a time when nobody thought the Church of England was protestant, then there was a time when everybody did, and then (up to the present) a time when some do and some don't. I have no objection to changes which make this clear. The lead cannot spend too much energy on it, but can give a quick "some count Anglicanism as protestant", and then later text in the article can give a brief explanation. Tb (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jolly good - I made a tweak or two; we just need some citations. Howard Alexander (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a nice step forward. Tb (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Justification by Faith Alone

'Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification.'

• Sigh* Can someone please change this to make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.95.9 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, but the language may be just a little too formal for readers of a general encyclopedia, particularly for an article like this one that should introduce a general reader to Protestantism. Some explanation or borrowing from other Wikipedia articles on sola fide may be in order. Take a look at some of the references to see if they offer more accessible summaries - it is quite a tricky topic and I have heard people spend several hours to try to explain it. I hope you resolve it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, the grammar of the aforementioned quote is not at all common and I do so suggest this, if the quote is not already revised: protestantism of the Roman catholic Christian faith does not depreciate so-called good works; rather, such movement does deny such works to be justification and instead believes that those so-called good works are only inspired by faith. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the answer is quick or simple. Most (but certainly not all) Protestants believe that they are saved by faith alone. (Ephesian 2:8-9) not by any works that we do. The thought here is that, if we could be saved by our own works, why would we need Jesus? Yet the "good works" that a Christian does are not entirely valueless. There are rewards for them (Matt 10:41, 5:2, Luke 6:23, 31, etc...) also by living this way, you will discredit those who "slander God because of the way Christian live". (1Peter 2:15, 3:16) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmccaff (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues with numbers of Christians and numbers of Protestants

There are issues with the numbers of Christians and the numbers of Protestants asserted by this article in the "Denominations" section.

The estimated number of Christians ranges between 1.5 billion and 2.1 billion, (see Christianity#Demographics)

Catholics are somewhere between 1.05 and 1.31 billion members (see Catholic Church)

Orthodox Catholics are somewhere 225 and 300 million members (see Orthodox Church)

Anglicans are approximately 77 million

Mormons are 13 million and Jehovah's Witnesses are 13-17 million (yes, yes, I know some Christians don't consider these two sects Christians).

The point is that the above figures conflict with the assertion in the "Denominations" section that Protestants account for 800 million out of 1.5 billion Christians.

800 million Protestants is just barely credible if the total number of Christians is 2.2 billion (1.1 billion Catholics + 800 million Protestants + 225 Orthodox + 77 million Anglicans = 2.22 billion Christians).

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Protestants so the question is whether to bump down the number of Protestants, bump up the number of Christians or just omit these two sects from the count altogether.

I am going to bump up the number of Christians in the "Denominations" section of this article to 2.2 billion.

But there is still another problem...

The article states, "There are about 800 million Protestants worldwide,[8] among approximately 1.5 billion Christians These include 170 million in North America, 160 million in Africa, 120 million in Europe, 70 million in Latin America, 60 million in Asia, and 10 million in Oceania."

Add up the numbers in each region and you get 590 million... Presumably the remaining 210 million live in the Arctic and Antarctica.  ;^)

We need to either revise the regional numbers upwards and/or reduce the total number of Protestants. I suspect the right answer is to revise the regional numbers upwards. Numbers can be found at http://www.adherents.com

--Richard (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

LDS?

70.171.235.197 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I ask you note LDS to be protestant. Any Christian church not directly connected with Catholicism IS protestant. HOW can you say Protestants "feel practising the Faith but not necessarily good works are adequate"? No good, Christian church I know of advocates this. "By your works are ye known." Catholics, with poor boxes and bingo and such, on down to the Salvation Army, Advocate and Practice good deeds.70.171.235.197 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Christians, along with Oriental Orthodox, are not Catholic and they are not protestant. It has always been my understanding that since the LDS dose not recognize the Christological formulas (the Trinity) of the first Ecumenical Councils where as protestants (whether Lutheran, Arminianist or Calvinist) do means LDS are not protestants, I believe wikipedia categorizes them as nontrinitarian. Zantorzi (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Most non-mormons (especially outside America) would not say that the LDS church is Christian ("no trinity takes the Christ out of Christian"). That leaves Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman as the three generally identified branches (hard to cut it any other way). The LDS is hard to mention or not mention in a neutral way though. Under the mistaken impression that all non-mention is biased, I think we do tend to over-emphasise minority groups though. Kan8eDie (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Quite"? People have a right to participate and voice their opinions on wikipedia. And think people can mention or talk about LDS in a neutral way, just as how someone can write on Shiite Islam in a neutral way. Even myself as a Catholic can do so. Zantorzi (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mormoms are non-trinitarian rather than protesant. Protestant implies a connection with the Diet of Speyer; Mormons weren't around then.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Latter Day Saints, formerly in communion to Joseph Mormon, was and is not protestant of Paul's church of catholic Christian faith in communion to the Bishop of Rome. The Church of Latter Day Saints is, rather, derivitave of some Christian denomination as a cult and then now a religion totally separate from Christianity. As Christianity is to Judaism, Mormonism is to Christianity. I propose that the "LDS" is removed from Christianity sections on the basis of its extreme differences. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking - the LDS churches practices many of the things that Protestantism is protesting. (i.e. A single human leader/prophet of the Church, (much like the Catholic Pope) the concept of Priests as a church clergy/office (rather than every believer is a priest), the concept of "sola-scriptura" (Bible alone) as opposed the Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price and the Bible together. Veneration of Moroni (the thought here is that he is placed on the highest place of the Church) much like the Roman Catholic practice of naming many of their Churches after Mary (i.e. - "Our Lady of ....", Church of the Blessed Virgin, The Queen of Heaven, ..etc..)

Vandalism in Article

Someone has put a dirty phrase in the first line of the article it self. Please fix it. Tks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.156.60 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Odds & Ends

Where does the idea Anglicanism is split from the Protestant group come from? Here they are the mainstream protestants along with groups such as Methodists or the Uniting Church whereas groups like Baptists or (Open) Brethren, considered by this article to be mainstream protestant are in fact borderline independent though not quite as far as Pentecostals and the like.

Also, where do the Sects fit in e.g. J.W's and Mormons? I see Seventh Day Adventist listed, briefly, under protestants but that's it. Should there be additional major Christian divisions therefore in the heading? I know Oriental was mentioned as distinct from Eastern but I am thinking specifically of sects, those mentioned previously and any others relevant e.g. Christian Science (Am I thinking of the right group?), and Independents or some such which would cover the Pentecostals and the like which Catholics/ex-Catholics do not view as Protestant.

As regards "In the early 20th century there developed a less critical reading of the Bible in the United States that has led to a "fundamentalist" reading of Scripture. Christian Fundamentalists read the Bible as the "inerrant, infallible" Word of God, much like fundamentalist Muslims would read the Qu'ran" How does this differ to the historical, original as opposed to Catholic, Victorian etc, era's reading of it? I accept the parrallel that both a fundementalist Muslim and Christian believe their texts as divinely inspired etc but this is somewhat provocative as fundementalist Islam is roughly equated with terrorism which Christianity is most certainly not! I think both the parallel and the historical extent of the claim need revision. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglicanism is considered by many to represent a "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism. Sources vary, depending on their perspective, their audience, and how detailed they want to get. EastTN (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just followed the Ontario page here. Under religion it lists Protestant, Catholic, Other, Orthodox and assorted other faiths. No Anglican unless it's Protestant or Other Christian.203.25.1.208 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mainline" Protestantism

I disagree with the concept that "Mainline" Protestantism "is most closely tied to those groups that separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century" Protestantism isn't really a genealogy of the Church denominations, so much as an ideology/theology that differs from "Mainline" Roman Catholicism.

That may have certainly been the beginnings of the movement. The word protestant comes from the word "Protest". What are they protesting? The Roman Catholic church of course. Yes there was Martin Luther's original "95-Thesis" and that was likely what defined Protestantism of that day. Since then many other items have been added (as Church theologies and doctrines "mature") and so I would argue that the definition of Protestantism is any belief that goes against Roman Catholic specific teachings, sacraments or Catechisms. Protestantism is not merely what defined it several centuries ago, but continues to be defined in new ways even today.

Other examples would be veneration of Mary and Saints. In particular the concept of Mary as a sinless person or even "The Mother of God" (Theotokos). Hail Mary prayers (which are viewed as "Praise Mary" prayers). The Rosary meditations/prayers. Canonizing Saints not specifically mentioned in the Bible. The Apocryphal Books of the Catholic Bible. The "transubstantiation" of Communion. The concept of Mass being done by Priests (the main purpose of Priests was sacrifice in the Old Testament) so this is often viewed as a continual "re-crucifying of Christ". Protestants believe in salvation by "Faith only" (Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9) Many Roman Catholics believe that your salvation depends on acts (good deeds) that you do in addition to the faith. The concept of indulgences. The concept of Purgatory. Protestants do not recognize the papacy or it's hierarchy. The majority do not concede that Peter was ever a Pope. The concept of the Pope as a "vicar" (proxy or substitute). The difference between the way "intercessory prayer" is viewed. Protestants believe that Jesus is the only mediator (go-between) between God (The Father) and men. Roman Catholics believe that other Saints (Mary in particular) can also be a mediator or go-between. The "immaculate conception" from a Protestant point of view would be the birth of Jesus (on Earth). The Roman Catholic immaculate conception is the birth of Mary. The majority of Protestants believe the original sin was Satan rebelling against God. In Roman Catholicism it is Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:1-6)

Less obvious examples would be the lineage of Mary, most Protestants see the differences between Matthew and Luke as being the lineages of Joseph and Mary respectively. (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-37) The majority of Roman Catholics believe that Mary's parents were Saint Anne and Saint Joachim. Whether Mary had other children, (younger half-brothers and half-sisters fathered by Joseph) i.e. James (the Less), Jude, Joses and Salome. Obviously Protestants believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, so Jesus would have been the oldest.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but examples of "modern day" Protestantism to begin with. Rmccaff (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We should remember this nice post, because it explains well why many Anglicans do not wish to be called Protestant. Hail Mary, the Rosary, saints, transubstantiation, the term "priest", sacrificial Eucharistic theology, use of the apocrypha in worship, purgatory, and hierarchy--all these are accepted by many Anglicans. Tb (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is User:Rmccaff writing this? And why here? He objects to the statement that Protestantism is most closely tied to those groups that separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century But that statement is not a statement about the "essence" of Protestantism, but about the historical context within which Protestantism arose. All of the contrasts which User:Rmccaff is talking about here are already discussed in the article. Does he want them in the lead? That would be quite inappropriate. Tb (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"But that statement is not a statement about the "essence" of Protestantism, but about the historical context within which Protestantism arose. " - Then why not start the article with the essence and definition, rather than the history and church genealogy? Rmccaff (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that there is near unanimous agreement about the history and church genealogy (though only "near", hence the ambiguity about Anglicanism expressed there), and the lead cannot go into long grisly details. The article does go into those details. There is most certainly not agreement on the essence. The definition is best not even addressed, though you'll find that the definition in most dictionaries has more in character with the historical. You will find that Martin Luther had rather high beliefs about Mary (see Martin Luther's views on Mary), you will find that the term "priest" is in wide use by many who consider themselves Protestants (a great many Anglicans, for example). So your list may express your convictions about the essence of Protestantism, but it is hardly universally agreed. Wikipedia should not get into a religious dispute about who best expresses the essence of Protestantism. (Paul Tillich thought that the doctrine of the Incarnation was contrary to the essence of Protestantism!) We can, however, explain the doctrinal complexities in the article, and indeed, we do. Most of the article is concerned with such matters. The lead is there to give just the briefest indication to the reader that they have found the right article. Tb (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with your statements about "not all Protestant" denominations share the same beliefs. However the vast majority do share in the majority of issues listed above (some of which (but not all) have been added to the main article) Anglicans and ELCA Lutherans do seem to be somewhere between the Protestant and Roman Catholic "extremes". But the largest Protestant denominations (i.e. Southern Baptist (U.S.A.) and Assembly of God (World) do not consider the Anglican church a protestant church. There is also no mention in the main article of "Mary-ology" (Purpetual virgin, Mary as sinless, Mary as the Mother of God, etc...) which is far and away the single biggest "issue" that Protestants have against the Roman Catholic church. While Anglicans and perhaps even Martin Luther himself may have agreed with this, certainly none of the larger Protestant churches of today do. Where do you draw the line between those "accepted by the majority of Protestants" and those who simply "include themselves by default" because they aren't Roman Catholic? I'm not sure, but certainly these groups exist (LDS Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Scientology, etc..) Rmccaff (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Any definition of "Protestant" under which Martin Luther doesn't count, simply points out that the definition of "Protestant", however appealing to Baptists and AGs, is a bad definition. Mariology is hardly the "single biggest issue", given the historical facts. I can only suspect that you are coming from one POV, and are fairly unfamiliar with the much broader waters into which you have wandered. Restorationists of all stripes, include the JWs and the LDS, generally reject the term "Protestant", though they unquestionably came from that historical stream. The Church of Scientology doesn't even call itself Christian in the least; why are you putting it there? Your general strategy seems to be to identify some set of doctrines, and then whoever accepts those must count as Protestant. That is inherently a POV-laden enterprise. It results--as we can see here--with the oddity that you must characterize Martin Luther as a non-Protestant. Tb (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mormons and Stephen Ray's "33,000" Claim

I removed some sections that were apparently added to this article by Catholic "e-pologists," who IMHO are one of the more pernicious and destructive special interest groups butchering Wikipedia articles. The "33,000" denomination claim has been traced to its source, and the source lists Mormons, random cults like the Branch Davidians and Moonies, etc. in the category that Catholic Apologists misrepresent as "Protestants" when they use this polemic. The statistic also includes para-church organizations and different geographic jurisdictions as different "denominations." In fact, it lists several hundred Roman Catholic "denominations," although Catholic apologists seem reluctant to point that out. The source document lists only 21 Protestant denominations in the sense that Catholics mean "denomination," while listing 16 Catholic denominations (presumably the various rites).

The paragraph was also written as if each denominational split was doctrinal or a bad thing, presuming a Catholic point of view on the matter. The truth is that Protestant denominations will divide for purely logistical reasons (like the American Baptist General Conference and the Canadian Baptist General Conference, or the Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan Church), and variations in theological emphasis and social mission are as often celebrated as disputed. (For example, the Salvation Army is renowned for their work, even though few other Protestants choose their organization or worship style.) The Catholic polemic also ignores the fact that Catholicism has achieved nothing more than a meaningless organizational unity of little substance, while parties as discordant as theological liberals, "cultural Catholics," pagan-tinted "folk Catholics," etc. far outnumber "traditional" Catholics in the world.

I also reworded the section on Mormonism and other non-trinitarian groups to make it clear that neither the non-orthodox groups nor Protestants themselves consider these groups Protestant, and the people who try to put them together in the same category have an axe to grind.--ManicBrit (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First, new edits to the bottom of the page please. Second, cut the pov pushing. You removed sourced material because it was "Catholic polemics" and then complain about a distinctly NON-Catholic source from a Catholic perspective. Frankly, your entire comment here amounts to little more than "blame the Catholics". Do you know who edited that information in? no. do you know how long it has been here? A rather long time. And yet you automatically assume the Catholics are to blame for it all. And you think the Catholics are being biased? I say in as good a faith as I can manage, look to yourself first.Farsight001 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my error on placement. However, the "sourced" material was mis-cited and misrepresented. The other material was poorly placed in the article and made for poor reading, as well as being framed wrongly, with misleading assumptions taken for granted. If you want to get into an edit war, then bring it on. (Someone else apparently has reverted your edits before I got here, thanks to whoever.) Or, we can simply appeal to an administrator and look up what the source in question really says. --ManicBrit (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article did not make any statements about what the 33,000 number means; it could mean that Protestants don't care much about organizational unity, or it could mean sheer fractiousness, or any number of other things. It is hard to see how any such inference could be substantiated, but it is well substantiated that there are a large number of organizationally distinct Protestant groups. Your polemic about who added what is entirely unsubstantiated and doesn't much need a response, since it isn't anything about the article. Please focus on what the article says, and not on your suppositions about the reasons why this or that person added this or that text. Criticize the article, not the editor. Tb (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the article implies that all of these denominations are "Protestant," which means that Mormons, Moonies, UFO-cult groups that see Jesus as a space alien, etc. are all counted as "Protestant." This is totally inappropriate, since the article otherwise describes Protestants as groups which believe in the five solas - which Mormons, Moonies, and various other groups plainly do not. The World Encyclopedia actually lists about 8,000 groups under the heading "Protestant." As far as my assertions about Catholic Apologists, I will reply to that by saying that the flaw in the design of Web 2.0 sites is that they assume that various communities have good intent. The Society for Technical Communication and other groups have examined Web 2.0 sites and concluded quite the opposite - that many communities do not intend to be honest or even legal in their group contributions. Catholic Apologists - many of whom are in the paid employment of Catholic Answers and other fundamentalist Catholic institutions - have an axe to grind, that much is plain. Their job is to put pro-Catholic propaganda on Web 2.0 sites. It's easy for a group of religious fanatics to mob a site and proclaim their spin "the consensus." The articles having to do with Catholicism and Christianity in general are the least accurate, poorest written articles on Wikipedia, and Catholic fanaticism has a lot to do with it.

I will add to the paragraph in question that the figure cited does not distinguish groups which hold to Protestant doctrines, as spelled out in this article, or the reasons why these various groups exist. I don't see how any of you can dispute that.--ManicBrit (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided is anything but a reliable source, and adding that paragraph implies that the large number is due to the inclusion of LDS and New Age groups, which seems extremely implausible. There are perhaps a dozen LDS/Prairie Saint denominations, and relatively few organized New Age groups which identify themselves as Christian at all. Tb (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, can you please tell me what characteristics Mormons share with Baptists and Lutherans aside from the fact that they aren't Catholic? You guys also seem keen to revert my minor edit of the words "share certain characteristics with Protestantism." But Mormonism is a hierarchical religion with priests led by an infallible prophet, which seemingly makes it much more like Roman Catholicism than any Protestant group. The Unification Church, the Manson Family, and People's Temple, among other groups past and present, also defer to supposedly infallible leaders with special charismatic gifts from God. What "characteristic" do you see these groups sharing with Lutherans and Methodists - again, aside from their not being Catholic? Should I start an article on "hierarchical religions" and list Catholicism alongside the Latter-Day Saints?

Making the word "Protestant" refer to every member of the human race who somehow fits the word "Jesus" into their philosophy and who isn't Catholic makes the word meaningless, and does nothing except make the only acceptable term for a sola Protestant "Christian" - which might not be so bad after all.--ManicBrit (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I'm Anglican, and I'm neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, though some Anglicans are Protestants. Protestant Anglicans also have a hierarchical religion with priests, by the way. If you think "hierarchy" is some thing which makes a group non-Protestant, you'll have to write off Presbyterians, most Lutherans, Methodists, all Anglicans, etc. Tb (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you tell me - what makes the Mormons more like you, an Anglican, than like a Roman Catholic, so that Mormons (as well as Moonies and others) can be put into a logical category with you? What is a "Protestant" to you? If you can't offer a logical reason why Mormons and New Religious Movements should be logically grouped with Lutherans and Anglicans, then your claim of "33,000" Protestant denominations needs to be explained. Even if we gave each major Protestant tradition (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) 500 different denominations, we wouldn't be anywhere close to your "33,000" number. This paragraph that you defend does not distinguish denominations based on theology, and it wrongly implies that each denomination is the result of a schism, when many are simply the result of logistical organization based on region, nationality, etc. This article is factually wrong.--ManicBrit (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being "more like". The silent Quakers and the AGs are all Protestant, even though they are worlds apart on most questions of theology. I may have more in common with many Canadians, yet I am American. I don't know how you can say that it "implies" that each denomination is the result of a schism; it says nothing of the kind. Tb (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'll bear with me, I took the liberty of adding the definition of "denomination" from the World Christian Encyclopedia itself to the reference. Lest I be accused of using an "unreliable source" like James White (a scholar in residence at a fully accredited university and an ordained minister published by major publishing companies), I have taken the quote from a Catholic Apologist's Web page, where the apologist attempts to prove that there really are "33,000" denominations from the Reformation. As the quote plainly shows, these figures are compiled by counting each separate national jurisdiction as "a separate denomination." It also counts independent, congregationally-run churches as "denominations," if you follow the rest of the page. This is not a "scandal" of "schisms," my Anglican friend. If the World Encyclopedia counts Protestants this way, then I hope the next edition lists 300,000 "denominations." I'd really like to see your rationale for deleting the actual words of the World Encyclopedia itself...perhaps someday I won't have a job, and I can sit here all day and we can revert each other's edits into the wee hours. --ManicBrit (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish you could put your POV and bias away for just a moment. You are not behaving like my friend. The quote you added in the reference, unlike your words, is good and measured, and a worthy contribution to the article. I regret that you accompanied it with inflammatory rhetoric here and in the edit history. Tb (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You identified yourself as an Anglican in the "Oxford Movement" mold, so noting that I - as an evangelical Christian who does not believe in "apostolic succession" or the theory that the "Church" in the proper sense refers only to some triad of high Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox - disagree with an editor who believes that Baptists and Congregationalists belong in a category with Scientologists and Mormons is not a personal attack. I don't know why you see it as such, or why noting the negative contributions of a group of zealots (who routinely cite "reliable sources" such as anti-freedom-of-religion and pro-Fascist writer John Salza) to Wikipedia's reliability and readability is a sin. The flaws of the "good faith" model of Web 2.0 sites is well-documented by industry associations, and pretending that we're all "good faith" contributors seeking only objective truth is naive in the extreme.--ManicBrit (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)