Talk:Evangelicalism

Template:Vital article

Article Photo

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? 108.209.235.32 (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

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." 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

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)

proselytism or activity

An editor changed the non-neutral word proselytism to activity. It was changed back claiming that the sentence "doesn't actually make sense". The change was "Protestant missionary activity in Asia was most successful in Korea" to "Protestant missionary proselytism in Asia was most successful in Korea". The issue is that not all missionary activity is an attempt to proselytize. There is medical and educational work. To categorize all work as proselytism is clearly loaded. I restored it because I felt the sentence does make sense. Which phrasing should be kept? Should the sentence be reworded? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, missionary activity includes other work. But this sentence (and the paragraph of which it is the lead) is not about medical and educational work, it is very explicitly about conversion work! There are exactly zero mentions of hospitals or schools run by evangelicals in Asia in this section; instead, there is a detailed discussion of the expansion of Christianity, i.e., the success of missionaries in converting people. Thus, the word "activity" here is vague and misleading to the reader. I do not have any particular insistence on the word "proselytism" if you don't like it, and I would be perfectly happy with any alternative construction that served as a clear and accurate introductory sentence to the section. --JBL (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You are being tendentious and misrepresenting the paragraph. It starts with showing how missionaries pushed back Japanese cultural incursion via language and in the second paragraph "and opposition to the old Japanese colonialism and to the authoritarianism of North Korea". I'll let you restore. If I see nothing I'll know that you are not editing in good faith. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how "activity" is "misleading". I don't think the word "proselytism" should go there. "Activity" is better -- though another word could be better (but I can't think of one right now). There's only one other place in the article where "proselytism" is used. It's used appropriately there, but not here. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Coit v. Green and church-related schools

In the section "United States", under "Recurrent themes", subsection "Secularism", the words "restricted church-related schools" are linked to Coit v. Green. I don't understand how such a case on racism in a school would be in any way related to the schools' relations with churches. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to rephrase so that the reference is decipherable. Let me know what you think. --JBL (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Evangelicalism in the United States

The United States section of this article was way too long, so I forked it over to a new page that formerly redirected to the section. I also copied over the HIstory section and cut out the non-American parts (which only amounted to a few sentences overall), and merged the two "20th century" subsections. This raises the question of what to do with the history section here. Almost all of it is American, yet

1. It's not in the United States section, and
2. It's redundant with Evangelicalism in the United States#History.

Should it be summarized and a {{Main article}} hatnote be placed at the top, linking to Evangelicalism in the United States#History? Or is it okay to leave the redundant content? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 08:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: I wrote much of the early history. It's meant to emphasize the trans-Atlantic character, that this was not just an American phenomenon and the connection to other streams of Protestantism. We still need a history section that focuses on the development of evangelicalism globally. However, that global history is going to be primarily British-American because evangelicalism's history was largely shaped by an Anglo-American revivalism and that is what much of the English-language sources will focus on. I guess what I'm saying is that the history section of this article and the one at Evangelicalism in the United States are going to overlap. However, they shouldn't be carbon copies of each other. I would not want to see the history section summarized on this article, since while it currently may see American-centric the history it is far from complete and needs to be fleshed out. We should probably craft a narrative that explicitly looks at Evangelicalism in America (rather than global connections) at the new article. Ltwin (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of a few sentences on Britiish Evangelicalism that I've already removed, it seems to me that the history part of the new article is already Americentric. I think if either of them needs to be retooled in that way, it's probably this article's history section. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

On another note, it might be a good idea to discuss such major changes on the talk page before you do them. Also, taking a look at the archives might also be useful. If you look at Talk:Evangelicalism/Archive 3#Unacceptable gutting of article, you can see that an editor did this before and the consensus was to revert. Of course, consensus can change, but its wiser to discuss big changes like this first. Ltwin (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a qualitative difference in that the US section had gotten so much longer (<15,000 bytes in 2013; >56,000 now). If consensus develops to revert, fine, but I saw a problem (the unmanageable length and disorganization) and decided to WP:FIXIT. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Operation World" (note 69) is considered a reliable source? Pew Research Center (which shows a slightly lower figure) would be better, e.g. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ 71.121.193.107 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Evangelic

• Oppose Not the same concept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI Evangelical is a redirect to Evangelicalism. Editor2020 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. We can move "Evangelic" over the redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Image:

The image at the top of the page isn't that great. It's an American Mega-church. It's great for the Mega-church article, but not for here. First, it's American, and Evangelicalism is a world-wide phenomenon. Also, Mega-churches are a recent phenomenon. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Until recently, there was another image at the top-a missionary leading a revival. It was moved to the bottom of the page. Ltwin (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not concerned that the image is of an Amercian subject, since Americanism and Evangelicalism are strongly linked, but do agree on the mega-church issue. Is there an image you suggest? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

But Martin Luther is also not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

American megachurches are a common and distinctive manifestation of evangelicalism. Any single image will not encapsulate evangelicalism. I'm fine with the revival image too. This might be a good place for a collage. --JFH (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

American megachurches are a manifestation of modern day American Evangelicamism. That however, represents a huge recent and American-centric bias. Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless and universal. Megachurches have not been around long, and they may only be a recent fad that may die out in a few decades. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

They are more common today, but our article on megachurches gives examples of earlier ones. It also says 5 of the 10 largest as in Korea. Also see this list!--JFH (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is even one Roman Catholic one: https://wn.com/the_mass_and_the_megachurch,_the_roman_catholic_church, so megachurches are not an exclusively evangelical phenomenon. However, as I wrote above, Martin Luther should not the symbol for Evangelicalism. While that this term for Protestant in German, most Lutherans in the English-speaking world would not be considered evangelical. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing Churches of Christ

Someone keeps removing Churches of Christ from the list of example movements within Evangelicalism. Since they are in basic agreement with the central tenets of Evangelicalism, there is no good reason to remove them. Discuss. HokieRNB 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)