Talk:Christian Science

Metaphysical Christian Science New Thought family

If I may after the fact of editing, explain some of the changes I made to the first subsection of the overview section.

• Section title "Metaphysical–Christian Science–New Thought family" used dashes to join words to act as a unit modifier of "family". Removing spaces for clarity, I got Metaphysical-CS-NT family.
  • Changed to "The metaphysical family", which flows: "Overview"->"Family"->"Theology".
  • As a first time reader, before I read the section, I'd not yet heard of New Thought. So I took NT out of the section title for that reason as well.

• "(though Christian Science distinguished itself from the latter)"
  • added {{Tl:citation needed}} to the idea "CS says its not NT"
  • took it out of parenthetical-mode, because it seemed more significant than that
  • If true, then why say "CS-NT family" in the section title?

• "mind-cure, mental-cure, or mental-healing movement"
  • changed to "mind-cure" (mental-cure, or mental-healing) because "mind-cure" is reused in the text a lot. "Mind-cure" is a quote in reference [15].

• Ref [15] moved to directly after "traced its roots... to Quimby" before telling his background (from the end of the the same sentence). Those roots could give good reason for CS to deny being part of NT, since the roots go Quimby->CS-> NT, per the quote.

• Ref [4] moved with its statement that "the metaphysical family" includes CS. Theosophists, and others in a metaphysical family that includes Christian Science.[13][4]
  • It was not clear how "the metaphysical family" included both NT and CS, while CS could deny being with NT. Who is right, the Christian clergy, scholars, or CS themselves? So I made sure it was clear that "the metaphysical family" is a sort of "an out" of the potential argument, because it is such a nebulous term (and good).
  • CS is not said here to deny the fact of Quimby, who is "an eclectic mix", and therefore a sort of metaphysical family unto himself, one that stretches back in time to "Hinduism". CS does deny the NT side, so perhaps it denies the Jehovas Witnesses and Adventists connection.
  • I fixed that by making clear that "family" serves both the accusations of clergy and categorizations of the scholars. "Family" is nebulous. It is nebulous, and still a good read after my clarification that 1) Scholars say CS is in a sort of metaphysical-is-king family, while 2) Christian clergy consider them wayward, prodigal. If CS denies NT, they don't deny "the family" of the philosophy scholar, the necessary and true judgement by the clergy, and yet CS and they can each smile while making their claims.

• "The metaphysical family" used to look like something... official and scholastic, but was just a repeated phrase in disguise. I mellowed that out, and took it back down to the mere words they are, good words.

• "several metaphysical healers talked about an invisible life force that the mind could harness.[4]"
  • moved ref [4] which is huge, yet did not seem to support its context there (there is no need to support that statement; it is common knowledge), up to the first paragraph, where it did supported that CS was part of a "metaphysical family".

• "There was keen interest in alternatives to medicine, in large measure because medical practice was crude and frightening, but also in reaction to the idea that suffering was something to be endured as a test or punishment from God.[14]"
  • I'm confused by "but also in reaction to the idea that suffering...", so I make it say "and there was also the idea that suffering is something to be endured".
  • "in reaction to" refers to a reaction against suffering; but the CSists suffer voluntarily, as a reaction to medicinal practices, not as a reaction to suffering
  • "and there was also" refers to a reaction for suffering, which is true, and it is also read as being "also" against medicinal practices, which is also true.

• I had some problems with the tenses. CS is alive and well. So are all those other groups and all the ideas. I know that the context started with waves of religion that once were, but to speak of religions is almost as sensitive a topic as the biography of a living person. So I changed the tenses here and there.
  • "In there heyday" was added to make true the statement "CS and NT adherents believed...", for they still believe today, but we are reminded that way of the historical context.

• "disease is the mind's mistake and mind cannot cure what it has caused"
  • Can be read: Disease is the mind's mistake because mind cannot cure the existence of disease.
  • Changed to: "Mortal mind" cannot cure disease, because "disease" is the mortal mind's mistake in the first place.
  • I believe my change better syncs with what is covered in the theology section. Disease is in quotes because it is not there, it is an illusion. The cure is therefor an illusion. "Cannot cure" is therefor confusing the real issues: disease and the mortal mind.
  • there is nothing to cure but the "mortal mind" belief in so called "disease" (in scare quotes). There certainly is a possible (confusing) interpretation that either the mortal mind caused or that Mind caused disease.
  • "Mortal mind" is specified because Mind can cure mortal mind, i.e. Eddy's "Divine Mind" can cure (enlighten) a "mortal mind", also said "Divine Mind can cure disease". That works because the two are synonymous "mortal mind" and "disease", synonymous that is, if that mortal mind is in ignorance with a dark and deluded belief that it is itself a mind in a diseased place.

— CpiralCpiral 09:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cpiral, I've reverted these changes because they introduced errors or problematic writing. For example, "mortal mind" is a phrase of Eddy's, so that has to be explained on first reference, and it's not "the mortal mind." There's no need to place "disease" in scare quotes. No need for "during the history of" the United States. The list of groups at the top of the first section are not all metaphysical religions, etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Always good to hear from you SlimVirgin. I think I understand the process, and am OK with the revert and ignoring the talk bullets. I'm glad you are on things. Perhaps I'll become helpful here. — CpiralCpiral 19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cpiral, welcome. I'm also wondering about the "Metaphys-CS-NT" section title. CS and NT are often grouped together as two examples of "metaphysical religion," but they aren't generally included in this interesting and evolving umbrella category itself (by scholars, that is). I'll have to double check, but I think it's only Saliba that does this.

One scholar is enough. — CpiralCpiral 19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The general thought here seems to be that although CS distinguished itself from NT, that's an indigenous/emic view, whereas the external/scholarly view is that they are the same. Setting aside what CS might think of itself for now (not my particular interest and seems more or less captured here), the second part of this formula raises issues. For one thing, it's not only CS that has distinguished itself from NT; NT groups have spilled plenty of ink distinguishing themselves from CS. More importantly, the arc of scholarship makes this distinction as well.

This is sort of a "biography of a living personage". Out of respect for them, and for the neutrality of the section topic, we need the citation and to present equal emphasis on the descriptions by scholars, clergy, and CSists. That will also bring the clarification I tried to make via a nebulous "family" that morphs from scholarly category and into various clerical flocks.

NT is a talking point made by religious scholars, and you say you have new information from scholars who will use the term NT. But I note that NT does not speak for itself, but rather is a loose group. It is evoked by clerics and by scholars to make their points. It should not be in the section title for that reason. — CpiralCpiral 19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

William James lumped CS and NT together. But Catherine Albanese writes that “William James…missed the Calvinist-leaning exclusionism of Mary Baker Eddy’s church and linked it, generically, with New Thought as a species of mind-cure" (A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 417-418). She brings out several theological and polity-based differences between CS and NT, describing them as two different historical expressions of American religion that are also linked in important ways. Several other scholars do this, too. Both parts are important (and taken together, not how CS adherents seem to describe their faith): different, yet linked under the "metaphysical" category.

NT is a way of saying what's unique in bodies of metaphysical statements concerning physical healing. CS does indeed have it perfectly right in the written contexts they have created, right metaphorically and metaphysically speaking, but they are easily attacked for their seeming attempt to apply metaphysics to practicing physicians. (The real intent is being missed, but WP just describes that scenario. The attacks serve to heal the attacker not physically of course, but metaphysically.) "Metaphysical" perhaps should not be in the section title because all religion, philosophy, and related scholarship is understood to make metaphysical talking points. (Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject, per WP:HEAD.) — CpiralCpiral 19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to post more from various scholars on this in a few days; I'm unwinding from an intensive period of conference work (and perhaps look more closely at Victoria's helpful comments above, too, though all appear well under wraps).Ath271 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cpiral, I've changed the header to "Metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) family," following James R. Lewis, Legitimating New Religions, Rutgers University Press, 2003, p. 94. He calls it the "metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) tradition." There are lots of ways of expressing the relationship. John A. Saliba, Understanding New Religious Movements, Rowman Altamira, 2003, p. 26 calls it "The Christian Science-Metaphysical Family," and categorizes it as New Thought: "This family, known also as "New Thought" in academic literature ..." The point is that there is a very close, family, relationship. The first section is only a brief overview, which makes clear that there are similarities and differences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that's a heading a first time reader can make out. And its also an authoritatively written heading and phrase. But 1) "New Thought" is a phrase of scholars that might better be explained on first reference for the average reader, (or else it tempts to read "Christian Science is new metaphysical thought family", while CS says it is neither from new thought or about New Thought), and 2) Thus the now-more-clear heading seems to try to foreshadow a CS-scholar/clergy controversy. But then indicate "controversy" in the ToC/header, because this is about CS, despite the no-info (well, hidden info in Related topics) NT template astride it for some reason. Thank you. — CpiralCpiral 07:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean. The distinction between Christian Science and New Thought was more fluid than you're indicating (and more fluid than our article suggests, which is one of the areas that could use some work), and to some extent still is. We do explain it on first reference, and I've now added that the liberal wing of the mental healing movement came to be known as New Thought. It's not a phrase invented by scholars, and I don't know what the CS-scholar/clergy controversy would refer to. Perhaps looking at some of the New Thought literature would help, such as Charles S. Braden's Spirits in Rebellion. Again, the first section is meant only to be a brief overview. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The rule for heading titles is "shorter and clearer". Our article is huge, but there is room:

• Overview -> The genealogy (philosophy) of CS (NT oriented), which is currently a vacant area on the page.
  • Metaphysical family -> CS-oriented stuff (in the usual style 'clergy and scholars' V 'Christian Science') This means we try to find a source describing how CS distinguishes itself, and make it flow. Until then because Christian Science distinguishes itself from New Thought, that assertion should be made first or last, not in the middle, and not in parenthesis.
  • Theology -> CS-oriented stuff
• History

Thus please consider taking NT out of the outline/heading, and leverage the NT article where possible.

This article swims in a style I love: "controversy against CS that ends up teaching CS", but we must cover both sides of each issue to achieve that excellence in enjoyment of the discovery. But its huge. So leverage NT, but keep its overview brief, and put it in the Overview section. Take out that NT sidebar? Or expand its "Related ideas" so we can see "Christian Science" in it? Or put it at bottom with the rest of them? (BTW, about those templates at the bottom: news from yesterday "CS is not a core topic in Christiantity", and our collapsed {{Christianity}} no longer says "part of a series on".)

"The New Thought movement is a spiritually-focused or philosophical interpretation of New Thought beliefs" which are a "loosely allied group", so I'll maintain that NT is a scholarly term for a category.

I distinguish between an occurrence and a mention. First NT is in the outline/TOC. I ignore it. As I read "Metaphysical (Christian Science-New Thought) Family" in the heading, (prime content real-estate), my confusion is palpable. I read the next paragraph, nothing. Then comes two more waves of confusion: 1) an authoritative-category sounding phrase "the metaphysical family", and 2) my search for CS finds them distinguishing themselves NT. To me (2) is significant. So I try to understand the categorization, but the explanation is buried in a description of NT that fails to put CS in a clear perspective, partly because when I read the references they come late in the text although there vast coverage reaches back up to the the beginning of the section. So I re-read and start editing it. — CpiralCpiral 06:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Section titled :((:

Thank you for changing the section title, but it's still a sore spot for me.

You said:

I've changed the header to "Metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) family," following James R. Lewis... [who]... calls it the "metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) tradition." There are lots of ways of expressing the relationship. John A. Saliba calls it "The Christian Science-Metaphysical Family,"...

The Lewis outline (the current one) is:

• Overview
  • Metaphysical (Christian Science-New Thought) Family
  • Christian Science theology
• History

The Saliba outline would become:

• Overview
  • The Christian Science-Metaphysical Family
  • Christian Science theology
• History

Applying some standard rules for naming section titles (don't use "The", keep section headings "shorter and clearer", don't use the subject name in the section title, don't make statements) to the Saliba version, my proposal is:

• Overview
  • Metaphysical family
  • Theology
• History

The reasons for "following Lewis" to title a section "Metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) family" may be good ones, but my proposal is also well reasoned.

• The subject outline (as seen in the TOC) is clearer and shorter.

• Removing NT from the section title removes the complexity that forces the reader to wait for a description of NT. Using NT in the section title puts it in the outline where it's prominent, yet where it's impossible to either describe properly or explain referentially.

• Also, it respects that Christian Science says its not NT. A remarkable amount of the content is necessarily contentious, but for CS sake, let's not have a verdict in the outline.

If no one objects, I should like to make those changes within a reasonable time. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 22:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm delaying the changes while I resolve my understanding of "metaphysical family". Please be aware that so far I still have issues with it, esp. in the lead sentence and in the parenthetical claim that metaphysical has an unusual meaning here. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 18:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Melton says "the metaphysical family" is one of "metaphysical, communal, New Age, magical, mystical, millennial, and Eastern" families. Our article starts off in the lead sentence saying that CS is of "the metaphysical family" of the new religious movements. Since the terminology in the the material I link to here says of "New Religious Movements" that "NRMs" are what "New Religious/Religion Studies" are about, then if what these scholars say is put in the article in their terms, then there terms needs explanation. Either we ditch their term "the metaphysical family" as used in our section 1.1 in several places, or we explain it, or we link to an article that explains it. The best alternative though is to use the terms "metaphysical" and "family" as usual, and not put them the term "the metaphysical family". Unfortunately New Religious Movement does not explain "the metaphysical family" or the spectrum to which it belongs, which I quoted above. It doesn't even use the words "metaphysical" or "family". The general complaint I'm making of these minor points of the occurrences and meaning of "the metaphysical family" will eventually turn out to relate to the section title.

This complaint about "the metaphysical family" terminology is technically similar to my "New Thought" complaint. I believe the two are tied together, and are solved together. By "solved" I mean a consensus on a defensible meaning of the terms I'm putting to question, that then result in section titles and lead sentences and content that reads and reviews well.

Not to add to the confusion I might me causing (sorry), but I don't think the term "the metaphysical family" is used anywhere. The term is treated in our article as that hypothetical three word phrase. It reads that way. Furthermore it explains itself that way where it says parenthetically that the term in it, "metaphysical", is a special kind. — CpiralCpiral 21:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Great point. Sorry I've been gone for awhile while working on another project. I don't think there was ever consensus to having the word "new thought" Usually when the terms Christian Science and New Thought are used in scholarship, it is denoting that they are two different catagories, not one category.

• New Thought is called a "scism" of Christian Science by Gordon Melton.
• New Thought does not include Christian Science as an adherent.
• It seems disrespectful to both New Thought and Christian Science to make them appear as the same.Simplywater (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No known as

The article says "what came to be known as the metaphysical family". It links to four pages in a Google book search result. But the phrase "the metaphysical family" is not found there.

It the meaning a metaphysical family eventually called New Thought? — CpiralCpiral 20:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a ref in place now. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. The overview section is just a broad brushstroke to set the stage. We can't get into detail about the distinctions between all these groups. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Variations in sources re: CS, NT, and metaphysics

Albanese has probably come closest to defining “metaphysical” religion in the American context. She defines “metaphysics” in terms of magic, healing, salvation, and energetic correspondence and uses these terms synonymously (Yale, 2007, 15). She considers “metaphysics” to appear in every phase and instance of American religiosity, rather than being tied to a particular tradition. She sees New Thought as a particularly clear embodiment of her “metaphysical” trend, but does not conflate the two. She treats Christian Science as distinct from New Thought, though historically in close conversation with it.

• So to Albanese "metaphysics" has its usual meaning across all religions (philosophies, and more?), while still being used by scholars as a category of new religious movement, where the phrase with "metaphysical" in it does have a special meaning: "the grouping", and not just "the group", but "the group". The metaphysical family of ours (sounds like Melton's phrase, which is 35 yrs old) is characterized by New Thought and Christian Science. (Both have very similar descriptions.) Albanese needs to delete in our article where it says parenthetically that "metaphysics" has a special meaning. "The metaphysical family" has a special meaning, and that is not explained very well in our article, esp. since it is in the lead sentence.
• Albanese does not limit "metaphysical" (you say) to one class of religions, yet our lead sentence cites Albanese tying CS to a limited group ("the metaphysical family") of religions. So the lead sentence has an unsupported cite?
• By "does not conflate" NT and "metaphysical family", I take it to mean she does not make a (Meltonian) category error (like Saliba seems to make, see below). CS is obviously in the NT line of conversing, but that is as far as it goes. According to my research CS and NT are both in "the metaphysical family" (explained below). Our article is not about NT, but it is in very small part about the metaphysical family when that term is explained properly (rigorously), like Melton's 35 yr old definition.

— CpiralCpiral 07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouter Hanegraaff (Albany, 1996) is the most influential historian of esotericism in the continental context. He argues that the “metaphysical” tradition is a modern expression of esotericism that is linked to but not synonymous with New Thought. He places both within a broader or sensu lato countercultural New Age tradition (the sensu stricto expression of New Age religion, he argues, is characterized more by European Theosophy and Anthroposophy) (17, 97). Hanegraaff leaves Christian Science entirely out of his treatment of American metaphysics. Apparently it doesn’t fit enough of his stated parameters. Conversely, he treats New Thought as a particularly exemplary bounded expression of “metaphysics” as he describes it, and a direct forerunner of New Age religiosity.

This is a topic for the New thought or New Religious Movement articles. But in the current state of Christian Science (which needs cleanup as I pointed out), it is temporarily our topic, thank you. Per http://www.cesnur.org/testi/bryn/br_melton.htm [^] and http://books.google.com/books?id=EPfTWgerZN0C&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=true [s]

• Melton invented the metaphysical family and numerous others, for the scholarly research of new religions, based on the beliefs and practices (including recruitment) of its adherents.[s] Melton has Hanegraaff's New Age tradition in the "New Age" family, and what Saliba calls "CS-Metaphysical Family", Melton calls "Metaphysical" family [^].
• Melton's metaphysical family does not have a set of beliefs and practices, as our lead sentence says it does, none of his families do. They are defined by what they are not. (THey're not dominant religions). [^] This makes our lead sentence a confusing, overly generalized, off-topic misstatement. The lead sentence is poorly cited, there being no book title to go with the pages cited. The topic "the metaphysical family" is a topic for New Religious Movements. The phrase is being used somewhat correctly, when it is first explained, but the sentence is not.
• The confusion with "metaphysics" in its various guises and "NT" in its various guises is this: Metaphysics can vary between any two philosophies or religions. It has been said that every choice has behind it a philosophy, conscious or not, consistent or not. If so, every choice has a metaphysics behind it. So religious institutions have a metaphysics they teach (ancient and eternal), and another metaphysics they practice (to survive in the world of politics, money, war). For example, Religious Science is the organization and "Science of Mind" is the teaching. But with NT? NT is the organization, and NT is the teaching. And metaphysics? Metaphysics applies to any behavioral choice, category of behavioral choices, and so on. And with CS? We have a theology section and a govThe teachings are not about academics and modernity
• CS is not NT for many reasons (explained next), hence the phrase CS/NT or CS-NT (or "The Quimby group"). I used to think we needed a citation to support that fact, that there was some notable statement on behalf of Christian Science. But now I understand that NT and CS are apples and oranges, two types of key players on the new religions field. Melton does not mention NT probably for the same reason that Hanegraaff does not mention Christian Science, there is a discipline to readability that leaves unimportant topics out. There is no consensus among the notable statements concerning the categorization of CS. However it is important, the way the article is currently structured, for us to pick one, and cite it well.
• "The metaphysical family" are composed of NRMs.[^] CS/NT (Melton's term[^]) means the four NRMs: CS, RS, UC, and CDS (per Melton's definition of NRM and per New Thought).
• The section title we use in the article "Christian Science-Metaphysical Family" is a confusion derived from two meanings of NT and from a category error as follows:

1. CS-NT is true, truly an oft necessary phrase (because CS is not NT, see elsewhere here)
2. "CS-MF = NT" (Saliba makes that statement, hence our section title). Saliba also says "metaphysics/NT" [s]. These phrases with the dashes and slashes are used while writing about his meaning for "the metaphysical family", not Melton's meaning. Thus despite Saliba's narrative structure being built around Melton's families categories [s], and despite the title of the book (that I keep citing [s]) being called "Understanding New Religious Movements", Saliba is not teaching Melton's terminology for New Religious Movements (NRM), but conflating it with "academic literature". He freely goes beyond Melton's definition that a "family" is a group of NRMs (because NT is not an NRM, and CS is in the MF, so why say CS-MF?). In defense of his freedom and his book (which I have not read) CS looks like NT, and NT's metaphysical profile looks like a metaphysical family of religions. But we're an encyclopedia, and need far more strict a terminology than Saliba provides. The dashes and slashes do not have clear syntactic meanings, and our MoS has a few things to say about that too.
3. substituting for NT in (1) CS-(CS-MF) or CS-(metaphysics/NT) we get the undesired (because debatable) results "CS-MF" and "CS-metaphysics". That logic is problematic because Saliba's NT is a religious movement, while our WP article by that name has NT as a cultural one as well. So for us (at CS) NT has two meanings, one for the new religious movements, and the other for the new cultural metaphysical movements. (Similarly the poplularization of the metaphysical techniques of practicing scientists in the New Biology, New Physics, New Historicity, etc. have cultural influences. Astrophysics does when it newly defines the universe, but the cultural news about the metaphysics that drive the New Sciences are not the same in practice at work as they are at home.) Similarly "Religious Science" the organization uses "Science of Mind" for its teachings, and both have a different metaphysics. As for CS we cover a "theology" and a "church" organization.

• As far as religions go, for Melton NT is a "tertiary religious group" for its three NRMs.[^] NT is not itself an NRM, because an NRM is a "primary religious group/movement".[^] CS is an NRM, NT is not. Melton might say that comparing them is a category mistake, like comparing apples to oranges.
• The so-called "metaphysical family/group/tradition" is composed of NRMs. [^] CS is an NRM of the so called metaphysical tradition. (Italics does the trick. In an act of terminological abstraction, italics makes a word-concept become a phrase that refers a label or title.)
• The New Age movement is an NRM composed of NRMs, and this is the normal situation, being as new religious movements are made, ironically, from the old.[^]

Who are we to decide which meaning of "metaphysical tradition/family/group" is most reliable? I'm just here trying to clean up the article so that it reads well. As it is, the read is confusing and off topic. Section titles like "Christian Science theology" and "Christian Science Church" sort of proves that much of the content is on New Thought (including an infobox), which is the topic we are off on here, and on other off-topic issues like the over-reliance on the many anecdotes embarrassing to CS that seem to be 90% of the focus. Until the confusion is cleared and NT content removed, I don't think that section title can be changed.

Sure we are disinterested, distant and objective as editors (as seriously recommended by the rules here), and so the article properly attains that look and feel, the scholarly look and feel, that puts "Theology" in last place behind "New Thought", "Member bashing" to "Criticism". The article is so critical, we couldn't even have a section called "Criticism" unless it was entirely rethought and restructured. I think we've gone to far in the article, that we're too distant, objective, scholarly.

• — CpiralCpiral 07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Then we have Lewis already cited in the article, who refers to CS and NT as part of a “metaphys family.”

So, three points here. A) There’s no single universally accepted definition of “metaphysical religion” here (or anywhere). B) Definitions of “metaphysical religion” have evolved separately from New Thought, though they tend to include New Thought as an illustration of the “metaphysical religion” category. C) The relationship of Christian Science to both “metaphysics” and New Thought remains contested and variable. The two leading scholars in this area see Christian Science and New Thought as discrete movements.

• Others like Saliba and Lewis are citing Melton, whose been at New Religious Studies for 35 years. — CpiralCpiral 07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Given all this, I’ll second the view that the NT sidebar adds confusion to the page. Also softening the entry would help a lot - ie, "There is significant disagreement re: how scholars and religious practitioners categorize CS." Then go on to list/cite.

NB re: weighting sources and WP:UNDUE: Albanese has 141 citations on google scholar; Lewis has 62. That’s why our article should prioritize Albanese. Braden’s Spirits in Rebellion is a good source on NT but not topically about CS, and despite a 40+ year lead time on more recent sources, he’s got 72 cites. Albanese engages, reworks, and challenges both Braden and Wllm James, and our article is out of date if it doesn’t cite her on this. I’ve already included her disagreement with James above. Yet our article gives the impression that James’s century-old views are universally accepted and “factual.” This is major and per WP:RS these differing views should be called out in the text.Ath271 (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And J. Gordon Melton had 24,000 hits on Google Scholar. I cite his 1999 article.

You mean William James' "moonstruck" remark or his "evil" remark? New religious movements were alive and well by James time, and he was categorizing in a primitive way.

A consensus of two, and we've made our remarks open for debate. — CpiralCpiral 07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)