Talk:List of Christian denominations by number of members

Pentecostalism

Before my edits Pentecostalism listed only 105 million adherents and Orthodoxy about 260 million. But Pentecostalism was listed before Orthodoxy. I think this is misleading. Pentecostalism only has a tenuous connection to Protestantism anymore (Methodist by way of the Holiness Movement), having rejected in principle the creeds and confessions of the Protestant Reformation. They are closer to a Restorationist Movement church like the Campbelites or Millerites who have similar histories. Both began in interdenominational revivals and believe they have restored some primitive Christian norm from the Apostolic era.

Pentecostals definitely qualify as Protestants. The goal of the Reformation was to restore biblical Christianity to the church. This is the goal of Pentecostalism as well, though the way in which they conceive it is different from that of the Magisterial Reformation. In reality Pentecostalism is yet another expression of radical reformation. If anything Pentecostalism is a form of hyper-protestantism.Spiritquest (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Question is whether the Anglican Communion aught to have its own section rather than being subordinated under Protestantism? It is a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism.

I think not. Evangelical Anglicans would class themselves as Protestant. High Church Anglicans call themselves Anglo-Catholic. It is a broad-church but a product of the Reformation and thus Protestant.

Questions about the Restoration Movement

Aren't Anabaptist, Brethren, Quakers restorationists. They just aren't Campbelites or Millerites.

And Baptists are evenly divided between those who refuse to call themselves Protestant and others who identify with Protestants, sometimes called Reformed Baptists or Particular Baptists. The First group insist that they were never part of the Catholic Church to begin with and are thus not protesting anything nor reforming anything simply continuing the apostalic doctrine and early church. So shouldn't they be grouped as Restorationists while the Reformed Baptists should be catagorized as decending from the British Particular Baptist / Puritan Independent movement.

In a sense all Protestants are restorationist, for Luther's goal in the Reformation was to restore biblical Christianity as he understood it. Zwingli and Calvin took this impulse further than Luther, and the Anabaptists took it yet further than either Luther or Zwingli. Since that time many other groups have started with the goal of recovering New Testament Christianity as they understood it. These would include all the groups mentioned above: Brethren, Quakers, Baptists, Campbelites, Millerites. In a sense Pentecostals would fall in this same category as well. The Campbellites just happen to be the ones who dubbed themselves Restorationists. But all these and similar groups have had as their goal to restore New Testament Christianity.

What's interesting is that eventually each of the groups have defined themselves over and against the other groups in terms of what they are not; that is, by how they differ from the other restorationist or Protestant groups.Spiritquest (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And Jehovah's Whitnesses are Restorationists also acording to every other page on Wikipedia.

Also, this page does not give denominations by number of adherants rather denominational families acording to number. I suggest expanding this page. To look at this page it would look like Methodists less influencial than Presbyterians when the UMC is actualy larger, I think.

Mistake?

Why is Presbyterianism listed under Pentacostalism in the article? Further, why does Presbyterianism not have a membership number?

Looks like it's been fixed. Presbyterians are listed under Reformed Churches.Spiritquest (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

adherents of protestantism

the number of protestants is mentioned as 500 million

however adding up the various protestant constituents - the figure comes to less than 375 million - where does the other 125 million come from?

I can't speak for where the original author or other editors got their numbers. I'm personally astonished how little backup for its numbers this article provides. However, I would guess that the source of the difference would come from one of two factors (neither of which I'm defending!):

• (a) the original source having included in the Protestant heading various small groups and independent churches around the world or
• (b) the original source having included as Protestant the various families that this article chose to break out separately. For example, the Restorationist and Nontrinitarian groups are classed as Protestant under some systems that mostly break it down into Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant (everybody else). After all, if you break it down that way, then Protestant naturally becomes the default category — and again, I'm not defending this — because the Catholic and Orthodox families are clearly defined by the member churches' overt affiliation, whereas you'd be hard-pressed to find many Protestant churches that use that name in their official title. Lawikitejana 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

adherents of denominations in history

Is there any figures available of how the number of adherents to each branch of christianity grown/reduced over time?

For example is there any data about how many catholics, orthodox, protestants were there in the 16th century, 17th century, 18th century, 19th century etc?

Unitarian Universalism

Unitarianism probably shouldn't be listed here, since, as the article on that faith puts it: Today, most Unitarian Universalists do not consider themselves Christians, even if they share some beliefs quite similar to those of mainstream Christians. Chonak 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Church originated out of a Christian milieu - it's "post-Christian" perhaps. It seems silly not to list it. john k 10:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, john k. Religious movements sometimes do develop into religions distinct from the movements from which they started. Christianity originated out of a Jewish milieu, but became distinct over time. Unitarianism has been around for 300+ years, and no longer self-identifies as Christian. The World Council of Churches, IIRC, does not include the Unitarian Universalist Association as a member, so there seems to be mutual agreement from the two sides. By the way, in a move to stand back from Christian terminology, the UUA doesn't even use the term "Church" to describe itself (although some individual Unitarian congregations do use the word.) Chonak 15:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely being a member of the World Council of Churches is not required to be considered Christian - the Southern Baptist Convention isn't a member either, as far as I can tell. I will agree I should not have called it a "Church". Otherwise, I'm not sure we disagree on the substance - the UUA is not explicitly Christian. Historically, however, Unitarianism was considered a Christian movement. We don't say that John Adams was the first non-Christian President of the United States, or that Neville Chamberlain was the first non-Christian Prime Minister of the UK. We should be careful about how we describe unitarianism, but I see no good that would come out of simply excluding it from the article. We should list it, note that it developed out of the Christian tradition but that it no longer self-identifies as Christian, and leave it at that. john k 22:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have been to a Unitarian Church, sang hymns, listened to a sermon and prayed. They referred to themselves as Christians. It should definately be considered Christian.

In the sense you are talking about the Unitarians are no different than the other "non-Trinitarian" groups listed--they all have Christian roots. However, in my opinion, none of these groups should be listed as "Christian," because Christianity is by definition Trinitarian and holds to the deity of Christ, which most of these groups reject. The one exception I might make would be the non-Trinitarian Pentecostals, as their view is closest to orthodox Christianity of all the groups listed in this section.Spiritquest (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Church of the East "not Orthodox"?

John Kenney's edit on 2006-09-10 brings up a difficulty in the use of the term Orthodox. His edit replaces the header Orthodox Christianity by Eastern Christianity because, he summarizes: "The Church of the East is surely not "Orthodox" by any reasonable standard". The difficulty is that the article Orthodox Christianity explicitly includes the Church of the East.

If Orthodox is used in two senses: a broader one and a more restrictive one, changing the header to Eastern Christianity to avoid the ambiguity is a good idea. IMHO the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches should be listed under Eastern Christianity. Chonak 07:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed two senses of "Orthodox." Among Protestants the term "orthodox" refers to mainstream (Protestant) biblical Christianity (hence giving rise to the above poster's objection to the use of the term in connection with the Eastern Church). However, in historical usage "Orthodox" is the name the Eastern church took for itself over time to distinguish themselves from the Western Roman church. In their own view they are "orthodox" with respect to the first meaning as well. They see themselves as the only church that has continued the original church since the beginning without corruption. So "orthodox" is a matter of perspective. But in terms of Protestant orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodox church would not qualify, it is true. But they would strongly object to the Protestant definition of "orthodoxy" to begin with. As far as the Eastern Church is concerned, Protestants are schismatics and virtual heretics.Spiritquest (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The article "Orthodox Christianity" is a mess, and so shouldn't be a model. Eastern Rite Catholicism is confusing - it should be listed under both Catholicism and Eastern Christianity. I would say that in most cases "Orthodox Christianity" is used as a synonym for "Eastern Orthodoxy." Given that the Oriental Orthodox Churches call themselves "Orthodox," one might include them as well, but the fact is that what makes Eastern Orthodoxy "Orthodox" would make Oriental Orthodoxy "Heterodox," and vice versa - the idea that they have some kind of common "Orthodoxy" is just silly - Eastern Orthodoxy is arguably doctrinally closer to Catholicism. "Orthodox Christianity" is basically a meaningless term, except insofar as it means "Eastern Christianity", and such usage is misleading. john k 10:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NO NO NO! Eastern Rite Roman Catholicism should not be listed twice. They are churches in communion with the Roman Catholic Church who use a form of the Eastern Orthodox liturgy approved for use by he RC church. It is clearly part of the Roman Catholic Church! Eastern Christianity might include them as a side note, but they are not in communion with any Eastern Church such as the Eastern Orthodox Church (225 mil) nor the Oriental Orthodox Churches (72 mil). The last two are the largest groups of Eastern Christianity. That is that Eastern Christianity is made up of 1) Eastern Orthodoxy (225 mil) and 2) Oriental Orthodoxy (72 mil) and 3) The Assyrian Church of the East. What is so hard to understand about that. I had it right on my revision a week or so ago.--Rclose 14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Eastern Rite Catholicism is now in full communion with Roman Catholicism, not the Orthodox Church, so the way it's currently listed (under Roman Catholicism) is correct.Spiritquest (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

--71.245.164.83 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)==Figures== I think that it is important for the figures exposed in this article to be the same as those exposed in Major religious groups. Now they are different. Can someone solve this problem? --Checco 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gee even simpler than that. What is the units and scale of the Y-axis of the chart? How does this reflect the change in world population growh over time? This graph needs work!--71.245.164.83 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

protestant figures

(1) Are the Anglican/Episcolpalian figures excluded from the protestant figures? (2) What is "Historical protestantism"? Is this supposed to mean protestantism which is neither anglican nor recent??? If so, this is a fair enough category, but could be more clearly explained. (3) Are restorationaist really protestant? I think there is evidence they are a seperate category, if they are Christian at all . N-edits 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes, they are. (2) Historical Protestantism refers to those protestant denominations emerged in XVI, XVII and XVIII centuries. (3) Yes they are protestants and they are definitely Christian: they believe in Jesus Christ. --Checco 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Restorationists are definitely Protestants. The restorationist movement arose out of mainstream Protestant denominations (Presbyterian and Baptist mostly) as an attempt to restore New Testament Christianity. For that matter, aren't all Protestants "restorationist" in some sense? The goal of Luther, Zwingli, and the other 16th century reformers was to restore the church to a more biblical form. Historic Restorationism is just the Protestant impulse on steroids. In this sense it's another expression of radical reformation, even though its links to the historic Radical Reformation are tenuous or indirect.Spiritquest (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Having added them up, i calculate anglicans must be included in the protestant figures. N-edits 22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism is something apart from Protestantism, it is widely considered via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. --Checco 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But so is Lutheranism. Just because it is a via media between Roman Catholics and Protestants doe snot mean that it is NOT PROTESTANT. Just ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if Anglicans are Protestant. Historical Protestant in my opinion should be catholic Protestant, from the Magisterial Reformation and therefore should exclude the Radical Reformation and any group which does not baptize infants. But if we want to just categorize it by centuries, the cut off date should be 1699!--Rclose 14:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But can Lutheranism really be called a via media in the same way Anglicanism is? Luther began the Protestant movement, so Lutheranism is the most Protestant denomination of all. The Church of England considers itself a via media because it really did not begin as a Protestant denomination (i.e. "protesting" the Catholic church on doctrinal grounds). In the beginning the Church of England was the identical to the Catholic church in doctrine and practice; only the source of authority had changed from the Pope to the English king. It was only after the initial separation that certain leaders in the Church of England began to associate themselves with the Reformation that was happening on the continent.Spiritquest (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Rclose - everyone who is not an Anglo-Catholic accepts that Anglicanism is a protestant group, and it is generally treated as such in most contexts - ECUSA is one of the "Seven sisters of American protestantism," for instance, and episcopalianism is clearly considered part of "mainline protestantism" in the US. The Church of Ireland is the largest protestant church in Ireland. The Act of Settlement safeguards the protestant succession in the UK by ensuring that the monarch is in communion with the Church of England. Etc. etc. etc. We shouldn't privilege Anglo-Catholic views over the views of everybody else. john k 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The 39 articles are very Protestant in tone. Anglo-Catholicism was/is a movement to recover the Catholic roots of Anglicanism, but despite its questionable beginnings (as a means for Henry VIII to be able to divorce), the Church of England quickly associated itself with the Protestant movement that was happening on the continent at the time.Spiritquest (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

groups without numbers

This page is already complicated, so i have removed groups without numbers of members, which are irrelevant on an article about numbers of members. N-edits 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was actually clearer before, so I rollbacked your edits. Before making such changes, you need to reach consensus. --Checco 12:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont need a consensus either to put current information in a clearer format, or to remove groups without numbers. Your RV needs to be better explained than that. N-edits 22:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The version before your changes was far more complete and clearer. I believe that we should stick to that version and make only little changes to the structure. If there is a group without numbers, it doesn't mean that this group is not important: leaving all the groups may lead someone to add more information. --Checco 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that you made some serious mistakes with your changes. For instance it is not correct to consider Anglicanism as part of Protestantism: it is a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism, and for many reasons it is closer to the first. Your edits are in general questionable, as the inclusion of nontrinitarians and the the exclusion of restorationists from Protestantism. They're also horrible from a graphical point of view (structure of paragraphs, use of block capitals, show-hide templates). Finally I'm strongly against the cancellation of many denominations and groups as you did.

N-edits threatened me about 3RR, but I was only defending the pages from his edits, which seem to me to be at least arbitrary and very near to vandalism. Obviously I presume his good faith, but I notice also that it is not the first time that he tries to make such changes.

I hope that other users will join us in this discussion, because I think that the article, as it is now, is very far from Wikipedia standards. The previous version was not perfect, but it was defininitely clearer and more complete. --Checco 07:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion continues below, see "Current version". --Checco 09:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Percentages don't add up

In the current version, the percentages listed add up to more than 100%. 56% (Catholics) + 30% (Protestants) + 15% (Orthodox Christians) = 101% ...and, that isn't even taking into account the 30 million and 0.5 million listed for Restorationism and Old Catholic Church, which don't have their percentages listed, but if they were factored the same as the Catholics (56% for 590 million), then 30.5 million would be another 3% approximately, which would push it up to 104% total. In other words, it needs to be corrected. (Cardsplayer4life 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

Current version

The current version is rather horrible -- since when do we use ALL CAPS IN WIKIPEDIA HEADLINES? Looks *extremely* ridiculous currently. —Nightstallion 08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we come back to the previous one? (See discussions above). --Checco 08:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it, but we need to have a version for which there's consensus. If that happens to be your version, fine by me, but the current one is really unbearable from a typographical, structural and stylistic point of view. —Nightstallion 08:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, especially on the need to open the discussion to other users. What is sure now is that there's no consensus for the current version. Maybe there's no sufficient consensus also for my version, but at least we are 2 in favour of a rollback and 1 against. --Checco 09:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to do the rollback. --Checco 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Checco, Are you a member of the Anglican Communion or is your opinion of the Church of England completly formed by information from wikipedia. Yes there are some who would consider it not-Protestant group. But there is a lot of latitude within the Anglican Communion. In fact it's demographic is moving south very fast, by that I mean to the very evangelical African contenant. The Anglicans there are much more similer to Conservative (sometimes charismatic) evangelical protestants. (As the main article on Denominations, only Lutherans officially protested anything and they are much more catholic than Calvinists and Evangelicals. I myself come from a High Church Presbyterian tradition and find my friends in Continuing Anglican churches have much in common. Historically, it is more like they are a via media between Calvinism and Lutheranism.

Nonetheless, I am not against separating them out if it creates consensus. I don't agree. But if it is separated out we need to separate Pentecostals. I have absolutely nothing in common with a Pentecostal, except that I was raised pentecostal. We don't share any of the same beliefs. You can not creat a umbrella called "Protestantism" and let every one but Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in and then arbitrarily yank Anglicans out too. at the very least, Restorationists, Pentecostals and Non-Trinitarians should not be included, the Reformers would be rolling in their grave. And such a position is very inclusive because it does not separate the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, and Baptists, and Brethren, etc). This craziness is like including the Assyrian Church of the East in with the Autocephulous Churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

What we need is a basic taxonomy. I sort of like the one with the CAPS, except we should get rid of the caps. EVEN THOUGH IT INCLUDED THE PENTECOSTALS AND THE NON_TRINITARIANS WITH PROTESTANTISM, at least it was clear and broke those groups out into distinct categories. My primary concern with breaking our the Pentecostals is that it drops them down on the list below Eastern Orthodoxy. What Follows has been and will remain my preferred taxonomy (numbers are approximate):

Roman Catholic - 1116 mil Protestantism - 590 mil (though I would include Anglicans here) Eastern Orthodoxy - 225 Pentecostalism - 105 mil (though this is a kind of Restorationism, it has taken on a life of its own) Anglicanism - 77 mil (Continuing Anglicanism is important to break out, there were never numbers for it. It is growing but more complex than you would expect because in the USA continuing Anglicans are sometimes under the jurisdiction of Bishops in Africa and therefore part of the mainstream Anglican Communion again) Oriental Orthodoxy - 72 mil Non-Trinitarian - 28.5 mil Restorationism - 18 mil (includes Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Christ, Disciples, Mormons and Jehovah's Whitenesses, among others.)

--Rclose 13:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Anglicanism should be counted as protestant. My basic opinion is that pretty much everything other than Catholicism and the eastern churches probably ought to count as protestant, with the exception, perhaps, of non-trinitarians (LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian Universalism, Christian Science, maybe Oneness Pentecostalism). It seems bizarre to me to claim that trinitarian Pentecostals, or Disciples of Christ, or even Seventh-day Adventists, are not protestant. Any loose understanding of "Protestant" would include them. The alternative would be to do away with "protestant" entirely, and just present the broad groupings - Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian/Reformed, Methodist/Wesleyan, Baptist, Pentecostal, Restorationist, and so forth. john k 18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with john k on pentecostalism, not on anglicanism. --Checco 10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So you want to group Pentecostals and Lutherans & Presbyterians into one arbitrary group, even though they have nothing in common with each other (one has liturgy and vestments and baptizes infants, the other has no liturgy and only baptizes adults) and then arbitrarily separate Anglicans away from Presbyterians & Lutherans for no reason. Any study of the Church of England, The Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion will show that it is very broad, incorporating many points of view. The Anglican churches in Africa, by far the largest demographic within the Anglican Communion, are charismatic evangelicals.

Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans have much more in common with each other than they do with Pentecostals (groups of these who mimic pentecostals today not withstanding).

The dream of a via media is just that a dream. I wish it were true. The words of Rev. Alban Waggener, former continuing Anglican pastor, express my own frustration: "I believe that if things had been different we might have ended up restoring the faith of Holy England as it had been before William the Conqueror... I spent from 1989 until 2006 in that body, the few bodies of that group, hoping I suppose that that might be finally an opportunity to accomplish what I always thought was the true destiny of Anglicanism, to be the Western Orthodox Church. But I and four other people believed that, so it didn't get very far."

If Pentecostals are Protestant, then the word Protestant only denotes a category of Christian denominations not Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. In this case, Anglicans are most assuredly Protestant. They are closest in theology to Lutherans and high church (or small "c" catholic) Presbyterians. Pentecostals have nothing in common with these three "Magesterial Reformation" churches.

--76.194.207.158 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting arguments (really!), but I don't agree with you. --Checco 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Current version/2

As everyone may read above, some of the last changes by Carlaude are not supported by consensus. This is the reason why I rollbacked his last edit, although retaining his previous ones. For stylistic reasons I consider important not to use such big titles for the sections. And what about Anglicanism? Anglicanism is via media between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism, I think that we should continue to consider it as a distinct branch of Christianity. --Checco (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

<Checco> writes in his edit “these are things on which we discussed before” and makes his edits as a minor in hope his undo is unknown noticed.

A: Anglican is protestant.

This is the only of my three issues I see in discussion. 1. Checco indicates as if consensus was reached on this issue (and others) to list Anglican as not Protestant, but there is not a consensus. 2. But if we were to read it as a consensus it looks like Checco is the only one in favor of listing Anglican as not Protestant and other see Anglican as Protestant, and with reasons. 3. Even if we did count “votes,” Wikipedia is not a democracy. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion. Let history and the established labels their-of hold sway.

Why would any one call the Church of England something separate? When the Roman Empire left Great Britain about 410 it had been there about three and a half centuries. The people that remained continued to practice Christianity and it advance in unique way (see Celtic Christianity.) In the seventh century the Celtic Church accepted Roman Papal authority after making contact and working together on some missions.

Eleven centuries later Henry VIII of England seems to like Roman Catholicism (the Reformation is under way on the continent) but in 1537 badly wants a divorce and cannot get one under the pope, (both for political reasons.) Someone trots out the idea to him of declaring the Church of England separate (again) from Rome to get his divorce, and justifying it in part with Britain’s history as a separate church. Only Anglicans (and only some of them) would take this seriously as making Anglicanism a new thing from either Catholicism or Protestantism: the story continues.

The whole region thing is in long-term limbo and take a new form and degree of Protestantism (or not) every time a new child takes the throne. Under his last child, Elisabeth I, come the Elizabethan Settlement. Subjects protested when her polices were even more Protestant than that of her half brother Edward VI. Others, returning from a self-imposed exile in Calvin’s Switzerland, spent much of her long reign protesting it was to Catholic. But noting she or her father did made it more like the Celtic Church and no body was arguing that it should be Celtic. They either wanted it less like the Roman Catholic mass and structure, or less like the ideas that were admittedly from the Bible, but directly were from protestant thinkers and authors.--Carlaude 16:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anglicans do not consider themselves as Protestant and are defined by theologians as via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. Moreover most of the articles in en.Wiki and the scheme in this page reflect this. Let the discussion begin. --Checco (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy but not a dictatorship too. Please don't make chages if there is no consensus about it. Let the discussion take its course. --Checco (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the Anglican Church any different than the Old Catholic Church? If the Old Catholic Church is lumped under "Catholic Church" then why would the Anglican Church be its own major branch of the Christianity (other than you or some Anglican want it to be so)?

Note: Even the Anglicans church admits on its US web site that:

• . Other Christians consider them Protestants.
• . Even the Anglican church is "ambivalent" on being called Protestant.--Carlaude (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Episcopal Church of the United States is a little bit different from other Anglican churches. The Archibishop of Canterbury would reject you definition of him as a Protestant. I'm sorry, but there is no consensus on you change and I think we need to come back to the previous version, waiting for a new consensus. --Checco (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear all: Wikipedia is source-based, therefore editors' original research (assumption) should be omitted. Note that legally, by British legislation, the Church of England is described as the "Protestant Episcopal Church". 219.79.166.153 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

B: The long list needs sections.

I see no discussion on this, nor consensus.

Without sections the list is a sea of words. A sea of words all the same size that goes on page after page. If you are used to looking at the list then you know the order of group and then can find things, but you still lack a table to jump down to where you interest is located. Both are important reasons to include. --Carlaude (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sections are not ok as this is a list and your proposal of sections with big titles is also bad for stylistic reasons. Let the discussion begin even on this. --Checco (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you say you like list sections but not not with big titles? Are you just approving of dividing this talk in tree sections?--Carlaude (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just think that the article does not need more sections. I think that a list like it is now is better and I strongly disapprove big titles like you used (=XXX=), in any case. --Checco (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Checco on this. —Nightstallion 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

C: Restoration included

At some point the all the Restoration groups were dropped totally from the page (am not sure when, maybe my fault), but as I indicated in my summary, I found them and put them back in. Checco in his clumsy undo removed them again.

I am not sure if Checco is seeking to claim that Restoration Groups are also non-Protestant or what. The Restorations groups had one main idea: Get back to the original ideas and practice of Christianity. They may have gone about it differently than you or I would but everything else came from that. This, however, does not put them outside Protestantism. Protestantism began (among other things) to get back to the original Christianity, again perhaps differently than you or I would. (Luther considered the liturgical rituals a matter of person taste.) Protestants still make changes to “get back to the original Christianity” as Pentecostalism seeks to do in its practices. --Carlaude (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you on this. Sorry about that. --Checco (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

change of format

Attempting to be bold whilst trying to make this list clearer I have changed the principle headings from bullett poioints to sub-titles, thus the contents show a summary of the main groups. Couldn't see a better way making it clearer but what do others think?

Leaving aside the numbers arguments, shouldn't the main headings reflect the lines on the chart? I know it may be impossible to get a consistent split between restorationism and protestantism but is it possible for anabaptists to be identified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkh (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is actually no consensus on your proposal. Be bold as you want, but... read the discussions before! --Checco (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No one seem to object to small titles, only "sections with big titles." so I am making this change.--Carlaude (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I object. I simply don't like it. As we are 1 against 1, I ask you to leave everything as it was before. --Checco (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it because of the empty spaces and I consider it less clear and simple. --Checco (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But you are the one who who said you did not like "big titles" -- what do you mean if you object to small titles? I just want to know.--Carlaude (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The big titles were something I've never seen in Wikipedia. About the small ones, I simply say that I prefer the current structure of the article. --Checco (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You lack consensus for your change. Even if you change your mind-- both Johnmarkh and I see the merit in this change. You cannot simply revert an improvement based on your own new preferences.--Carlaude (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

2 to 1 is not consensus, but I won't revert that edit as my proposal has even less consensus. --Checco (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Laughly six?

What does this mean?--T. Anthony (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Independents 422.659 million

Who are these and where does the number come from? Does it iclude Oriental Orthordox? I suggest it would be helpful if the megablocks listed at the top (6) corresponded to the categories used in section 2 (7).

--John Price (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are all numbers in millions?

I think I saw .0006 million people in this article as one of the numbers. That's 6,000, right? Does it really make sense to have all the numbers listed in millions, or, maybe, should the numbers of less than a million be converted into whole numbers? John Carter (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's only a limit case and I actually prefer all the numbers listed in millions. --Checco (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My only objection, as it were, is that for some of the smaller numbers it is a lot harder to figure out what the number at the end of the zeros is supposed to mean. We are supposed to make things as easy to understand as possible, remember. While I can see maybe allowing those in the hundreds of thousands range to stay as decimal, when were in the range of 1% of a million it might be a little too much math for a lot of people to figure out what kind of number we're really talking about. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Anglican Communion

The Anglican megabloc ought to be subsumed into the broader Protestant one.

There are many ways to define "Protestant," enough that it should more correctly be "protestant." But even the narrowest definition -- Western-rite churches originating in Reformation Europe -- could hardly fail to include the Anglican family, a Western-rite church of Reformation origin.

Of course, this article uses an even broader definition of "Protestant," which makes the segregation of Anglican churches even stranger. For example, this article (wisely, I think) groups Baptists, restorationists, and Pentecostals under "Protestantism," even though these churches are less likely to self-identify as Protestants than Anglican churches are. In sum, if groups from the Radical Reformation, Baptists, restorationists, and Pentecostals are placed under "Protestantism," than Anglicanism cannot be placed apart here.

It is true that many Anglicans consider themselves as being between Protestantism and Catholicism, but so do other "Protestant" groups listed here. It is also true that some Anglicans reject the term "Protestant" specifically. But that is also true of members of other "Protestant" groups listed here. The categorization in this list is clearly bent toward scholarly objectivity and a broad definition of what Protestantism is. A fair application of that standard requires that Anglicanism be placed under Protestantism. -- Queen Elizabeth II, Supreme Governor of the C of E

Dear Queen Elizabeth II, I don't agree with you and I oppose any change for the fact that Anglicans represent a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism, and they're even listed as part of Catholicism in the main Wiki template about Christianity (see Template:Christianity)! Apart from the US, nowhere else Anglicans are classified as Protestants and the Episcopal Church of the United States is a small minority within the Anglican Communion (go and tell to a member of the mighty Church of Nigeria that he's a Protestant and you will see if he agrees...).

Anyway I have no problems with separating Modern Protestantism or Pentecostalism from the "Protestantism" section, but I definitely prefer the current version, as Pentecostalists are Protestants in many ways, more than most Anglicans are. --Checco (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Her Majesty as Methodists (at least the British ones I don't know about others) who also identify in between catholicism and protestantism are in the protestant section. Lemonade100 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering: Is the first writer realy HM Queen Elizabeth? ^Just _Asking

To sign Queen Elizabeth is just plain silly if the contributor wants to be taken seriously. Queen Elizabeth is indeed Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That designation of a secular figure as head of the church would be anathema to most Protestants. As for whether Anglicans ought to be grouped among the Protestants along with Baptists, well, few members of the community would be happy with that view. An argument could, and often has, been made that the Church of England is a schismatic Catholic church (a view more popular among "high-church" Anglicans). Of course, the Anglican community tolerates a very broad spectrum of doctrines, with some parishes differing little from Methodists, and others just like Roman Catholics without the Pope. Indeed, it is said that after Vatican II, many Catholics nostalgic for the old liturgy attended high-church Anglican services. They may not have been conducted in Latin, but Elizabethan English was next best. And high-church parishes have all the incense, candles, bells, ecclesiastical vestments and other paraphernalia of the Catholic Church. From Henry Cardinal Newman to today, many Anglican priests have found it very easy to "go over to Rome."

Henry VIII's motives for separation could not have been more different that those of Luther or Calvin. In sum, though opinion varies, few Anglicans would assert that their denomination fits squarely among the Protestants, even if protestantism is narrowly defined to exclude Pentecostals and Anabaptists and refer only to mainstream Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists and Lutherans. Luke Line 07:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Line (talk • contribs)

Fine tuning the Branches of Christianity diagram

The diagram provides an excellent visual-historic display of the evolution of Christendom. However, regarding Catholicism(Western/Eastern) it might be more correct to deplict Maronite and Italo-Albanian Eastern rites as contiguous with Catholicism at all times; they never departed from the Church to E. Orthodoxy and reunite as is presently displayed.

- [Eastern Catholic Churches]| "The gradual evolution of the Latin West and the Greek East culminated in the tragic Schism of the Church in 1054. Nearly all of the remaining Eastern Churches, EXCEPT the Maronites and the Italo-Albanians, joined the Byzantine or Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople" 5 Roberson, Ronald. The Eastern Christian Churches, Sixth Edition. Editione Orientalia Christiana, Pontificio Istituto Orientalia (Pontifical Oriental Institute), Rome, Italy, pp. 20, 27, 139-188, 1999 . Micael (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Preview of edited diagram: While I can not figure out how to make a line connecting directly from Early Christianity toward (Eastern rite)...this pretty much suffices to make the point. Micael (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Major branches within Christianity

(Claimed separate lineage)

Restorationism

Anabaptism

Protestantism

Anglicanism

("Via Media")

(Western rites)

Catholicism

(Maronite & Italo-Albanian/non-Schimatic E.rites)

(Eastern rites)

Eastern Orthodoxy

Oriental Orthodoxy

Assyrian Church

Reformation

(16th century)

Great Schism

(11th century)

Council of Ephesus 431

Council of Chalcedon 451

Early Christianity

"Union"

This template is derived from Image:ChristianityBranches.svg. It is intended for placement in categories, as it contains links to other categories.

This change is extremely controversial, and discussion here is inappropriate. It should be discussed (and is being discussed) at the talk page for the image in question. Tb (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are the original Methodists (Wesleyans)

Since John Wesley (1703-1791) started the whole movement, shouldn't his church get a mention? Though he remained his whole life in the Church of England heading an evangelical movement, his followers formally separated in 1795, soon after Wesley's death. The Methodist Church of Great Britain has 6,000 churches. But it is not in the list! This denomination directly gave rise to Methodism in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. The latter merged with Congregationalists and most Presbyterians to form the Uniting Church of Australia. Why aren't they in the list, either? On the whole, this list seems a rather American-oriented slapdash affair with many omissions. Perhaps the original compiler, to take a charitable view, assumed the information would be refined over time by other contributors. This seems to me an intellectually impoverished way to set about composing an encyclopedia entry. Sorry if that sounds rude. Luke Line 07:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Czechoslovak Hussite Church

What about this? Shouldn't it be in the list as well? – Josef Plch, 27. 5. 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

"Modern Protestantism" numbers do not add up

The source says "According to the World Christian Database, classical Pentecostals number 78 million, Charismatics 192 million and Neo-charismatics 318 million". Our numbers sum up to 274 millions (leaving 314 millions MIA) despite counting 130 million pentecostals. This means that the classification used by the source is not the same as the one used in the article. Unfortunately within the section there's hardly any source. Balabiot (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah´s Witnesses membership disputed

Via the biggest server statistics about religion groups Adherents.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adherents.com
http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_jw.html
have Jehovah's Witnesses more than 16,500,000. They (adherents.com) talk about practizing members, while other religious groups counting its adherents other way (collect all people which include). By this mean, should be changed here, beacuse equal way to entrance to each religion group. Now is about 18,168,323 (as of September 2009) according JW official stats. In this article (List of Christian denominations by number of members) section "Nontrinitarianism - 27 million" and "Jehovah's Witnesses - 7.1 million" should be repaired to "Nontrinitarianism - 38.4 million" (including Latter Day Saints latest data) and "Jehovah's Witnesses - 18.2 million". ... to be equal and fair to all religions.

For example this suggested formula could be applied into the article

• Jehovah's Witnesses - 7.3 million while number of adherents is probably much higher.
  

But, JW´s officials stats publicly only that 7.3 million, not 18.2 million. ... As the official opinion of JW´s is count "practizing members only", current formulation in article is correct. http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article41.htm#membership "Practizing members" means "only those who are actively involved in the public Bible educational work" = preachers

Trully, is highly disputed if Wikipedia article should write 7 million, while other religion count all people which is included.
Any other opinions?
--89.176.47.126 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I applied the suggested formulation into the article.
I applied also LDS (Mormons) numbers.
--89.176.47.126 (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If the number of adherents of JW is around 18 million and you have sources to prove that, we should insert that figure and replace the official figure given by the JW organization. --Checco (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That three links is enough as a source. There are surely many other similar stats in all religions. But I want not to change article info, because the official opninon of JW organization is count only the preachers as members. Probably all which are water-babtisted. They don´t consider all people which have interest and Bible study with them as their members. But if these people will be questioned about their prefered faith, they probably answer to proclaim yourself as Jehovah´s Witness. That is second point of view. Maybe most of them are not members, but they are adherents of JW´ faith. It´s difference in conseguence of two different words (adherent,believer VS member of any church) --89.176.47.126 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One questionable is. Once Mormons, Catholic, Babtist, Muslims, Buddhists etc. counts those which have "paper-signed-membership" OR automatically count all people which are included (opinion of adherents.com). Nobody can prove data of any of churches, nobody can independently check up their data. .... Where is the right way? Other churches count all .... JW´s count only "real members". --89.176.47.126 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete list

This list is very incomplete. I looked at the Methodism section and was able to add at least 4 denominations/churches. I do not, however, know the memborship of these churches. I also added the African Orthodox Church under the Anglicanism section and the Liberal Catholic Church under the Catholicism section. This list needs a lot of work. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The list has to be incomplete. It is quite impossibile to include all the existing Christian denominations in the world. This is why we chose to include in this list only the notable organizations of any branch of Christianity. An exception was made for the small orthodox churches, while for protestant churches we chose to include only those organizations with at least 0.5 million members. The churches you inserted were not present in the list simply because they were too small to be relevant. If you want we can do a big research and include also all the Christian churches with, say, 0.1+ million members, but we should include all of them, not simply some, and give their membership numbers. This is why I will rollback your additions under Methodism. Including those churches and not others would have been arbitrary. If you want do that big research anyway and anyhow, you're welcome to do it. --Checco (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. For example this.

http://www.adherents.com/

Adherents.com - Christian Denominations - count for today is 43870

At the bottom of page

43,940 adherent records.

4,351 groups.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm

World Christian Encyclopedia - Christian Denominations - count for today is 41911

At the bottom of page

Your Total "Christian Denominations" Count for today is 41911

No-one knows all christian groups. Wikipedia article can´t be complete. But You can help to add many others here. But only the major, big, important ones --89.176.47.126 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Statistics of Apostolic Catholic Church

From where does it come that the "Apostolic Catholic Church" has 5 M members? Can't find any statistics on them anywhere else. --85.231.49.214 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of Denominations

Why is having a total number of denominations listed in this article disallowed? I specifically edited it to stat that "this article lists" and didn't imply that those were comprehensive totals. I think people might be curious and not want to have to count a very long list multiple times as I did. Why limit the usability of the entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.225.214 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not disallowed, but I didn't think it was all that useful. Replace it if you want; we'll see what others think. But keep in mind that many would consider some of these separate rites within a church, and not a separate denomination. 24.197.208.203 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Grossly Incorrect Count of Orthodox Membership

These numbers are just incorrect. Most of the sources for Orthodox numbers are from a single website which cites no sources for its work. Even worse, this source is written by members of the Roman Catholic church citing orthodox Christians as "The Other Catholics" which implies bias. Other churches such as the Georgian Church are listed with an arbitrary number of .010 Million adherents. The source for them (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PR.HTM) has no number whatsoever. The Georgian Church article on wikipedia cites a more reasonable 3.5 million. A possible issue is that most of the information on the Orthodox churches is not in English. These numbers need to be reviewed and updated with real sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtlloyd (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The churches you are talking about are not part of Eastern Orthodoxy, but are small churches affiliated to the Catholic Church (that is why they are referred as "other Catholics"... no bias at all!). Regarding the Georgian Byzantine-Rite Catholics the Wikipedia article speaks of 500 adherents! --Checco (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglicanism, Old Catholics and the PIC

Since the Old Catholic Church (mostly) and the Philippine Independent Church are in commmunion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, shouldn't they be counted as part of Anglicanism rather than listed with [Roman] Catholicism? Kranf (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

CoC not Mormons

I noticed that User:Checco reverted an edit, here equating Mormonism with the Latter Day Saint movement. The problem with this is that the Latter Day Saint movement is composed primarily of two churches: the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and the Community of Christ. Members of the LDS Church self-identify as Mormon, while CoC members have rejected the title, mainly because of its association with Polygamy (which they never practiced.) Additionally, the AP Style Guide states that "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death."

So, equating the Latter Day Saint movement with Mormonism is an error. Mormonism is properly applied to the LDS Church, and the miniscule sects that split from it in the 21st century. – Adjwilley (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look at List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement as a reference for the following terms, only sects within one of the major groupings within the movement consider themselves Mormons (i.e. the "Brighamites"), but not even all of the sects in that grouping accept the term. The "Josephites", "Hedrickites", "Rigdonites/Bickertonites", "Cutlerites", and "Strangites" do not consider themselves Mormon. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglicanism: Christian Demographic sources

Reverted earlier edit: (A)Wikipedia is source-oriented. It's a demographic article and I see no "editors' consensus" here about excluding Anglicans from Protestants. Let's follow the breakdown our sources use: Protestant-populuation-includes-Anglicans. (B)See Protestant and its figure for example. (C)Double standards: If we exclude Anglicanism, why don't we simultaneuously exclude Lutherans who also claim themselves as both Protestant and catholic? (D) Finally, removing citation unreasonably is an act of vandalism. Let's focus on the source instead of creating more Original Research. Read WP:CITE and WP:OR (E) The 800 Million figure is supported by sources and has been adopted for years, I see no reason and no need to exclude Anglicans simply because they possess catholicity. (F) Historical distinctions exist between many Protestant denominations (Anglican~Protestant/Pentecostal~Protestant/Lutheran~Protestant) it thus doesn't neccessarily and totally exclude Anglicans' figure. The tradition statement of Anglican faith, namely Thirty-nine Articles, are theologically Lutheran/Calvinist. Yes, it means definitely Protestant.

42.3.105.206 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

SSPX

Hey guys. I removed SSPX from the list of "Breakaway Catholic Churches" as it is not a Church, not a denomination, nor does it necessarily qualify as "breakaway." It is a priestly society whose members (all of whom are priests - SSPX certainly doesn't have half a million priests as the page implies) are not in good standing with the RCC. All of the other churches listed call themselves churches and are clearly breakaway. That edit was reverted. I don't want to get into a revert war, so it seems appropriate to discuss this here so that we can come to a consensus here. Thanks. --50.4.162.0 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)