Talk:List of Christian denominations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Anglicans

Listing Anglicans under "Protestantism" isn't NPOV. Unfortunately, not listing them under Protestantism is also not NPOV. Any suggestions for how to fix it? Note that Anglicanism does not fit the broad definition in Protestantism since the Church of England split with Rome entirely independently of Martin Luther; Henry VIII of England was titled "Defender of the Faith" because he wrote a treatise against Luther. The "Protestant" heritage of the CofE, for those who believe in that (insert smiley here) came later.

--Tb 03:43 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved Anglicanism from under Protestantism, since technically they are not Protestants.

Taxonomy can be a very difficult task, even with a sub-group such as Baptists. When we try to extend that to all groups that identify themselves as Christians, it is daunting. IMO, Anglicans need to stand as a separate group, neither Catholic nor Protestant. A good precedent for this is the World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in The Modern World (2nd edition, David Barrett, ed., hb., 1730 pp., Oxford University Press). In that volume, all Christians are first categorized as six megablocs - Anglicans, Independents, Marginal Christians, Orthodox, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. For those interested try researching at the World Christian Database

--Rlvaughn 7:50 pm CDST 11 Oct 2003 

Although I moved Anglicans back, I am sympathetic to the reasoning here. I've changed the title to more inclusively describe the groups that are included under it, to "Protestantism, Anglicanism, and descendant churches". Is that a good compromise? Mkmcconn 21:10, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me; I hope it is generally accepted. Rlvaughn 04:06, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also, a more accurate tree would look like:

• orthodox (little O) ??
  • Nestorian
    • Antiochene
  • orthodox (little O) ??
    • Oriental Orthodox (monophysite)
    • Chalcedonian Orthodox
      • Eastern Orthodox
      • western
        • Roman Catholic
        • Protestant
        • Anglican?

why? well, under the principle that "before people divide, they are one", and that names alone don't tell you historical relationships correctly. (The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are both closer [officially] than either is to the Oriental Orthodox.)

How to order within a category might also be disputed, but I don't really care about that provided the ordering is clear. (I think clarity means that you put the one with the fewest subgroups first, but I don't care much about the point.) --Tb 03:52 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Generally speaking, lists never tell the truth. That's why it's good that Wikipedia lists present and future articles, rather than trying to graph relationships by the arrangement of bullet-points alone. On the other hand, this approach creates literally hundreds of links to articles that will most likely never exist, and that's another reason that lists are bad. Mkmcconn 04:47 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hehe, point taken. But it's reasonable to hope for making things better, right? I don't have any problem making a re-org like the one I've just outlined; it would more accurately depict the historical divisions that let to the current reality. At least not listing "Oriental Orthodox" under "Orthodox", which is the most serious problem. And where to put Anglicans, too. Another issue is that the list is a list of denominations; the different Anglican provinces aren't different denominations, nor are the different churches listed under Eastern Orthodox. It's currently more a list of "independent churches", more or less, with part of the problem being that different families of churches define even that quite differently. Perhaps I'm tilting at windmills, but it's in my nature to want to figure out a better way. --Tb 05:28 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's certainly a thorny problem. I think the Eastern Orthodox might be closer to at least some of the Oriental Orthodox than to the Roman Catholics; at least, it's easier for me to envision them reuniting with someone like the Coptics than with the Roman Catholics. As far as the Anglicans go, you have a fair point. How would the placement of the Anglicans affect of the placement of groups like the Episcopalians and Methodists, and denominations that later split off from those? Real history is probably more complex than any ASCII chart or list can show; perhaps we should add some disclaimer to that effect, with a note that more details can be found in the articles about those denominations. Wesley 13:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Try listing them in both places. The catholic side of Anglicanism likes to say that they are not protestant, and the Evangelicals would never admit to being Catholic. But, the fact is that the church is both, schismatic catholic and unreformed protestant. It has eyes turned in two directions (your mother told you, if you keep crossing your eyes, they'll stay that way!) A graphic description of Anglicans should describe this double-vision. (By the way, this inability to choose sides between Protestant and Catholic, and yet not torn apart despite the violence of the forces pulling at her, is one of the most noble and attractive things about the Anglicans.) — Mkmcconn 15:18 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's not an inability, it's an unwillingness. There's a difference. As an Anglican firmly ensconced in the catholic side, I would be very bothered if the evangelicals were booted. We are greatly enriched by the diversity. (And, incidentally, calling the Anglicans "schismatic Catholic" isn't NPOV...) --Tb 18:56 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them that, but wouldn't a Roman Catholic (and a liberally minded Roman Catholic, at that)? BTW, by inability I meant only unwillingness. Mkmcconn 19:21 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Um, yes, RCs would generally say that. But Anglicans never would--that's why it's NPOV. --Tb 19:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is also some affinity between Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox. Around 100 years ago or so there was even some preliminary talk about what it would take to restore communion between them; obviously the two have moved apart since then. (When the Episcopal church voted to ordain women a few years ago, an Orthodox bishop who was at the convention observing said, after the vote had been cast, that the move was raising another obstacle to restoring unity. His announcement was met with cheers.) But when King Henry VIII kicked out the Roman Catholic priests and then looked around for clergy for the new Anglican church, he turned to monks who were still more influenced by pre-Roman Celtic Christianity, which has much in common with Eastern Orthodoxy. And so Orthodoxy had a round-about influence on Angicanism from the beginning. :-) Wesley 05:32, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Another idea: don't even try and have the higher levels of organization. After all, this is a list. My inclination is to list genetic relationships (which would put the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics closer to each other than either to the Oriental Orthodox). But another is to put a sort of generic similarity (which would put the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox close together). Similarly, genetic lineage would put Methodists right next to Anglicans, even though these days they are much closer to, say, Presbyterians or other "mainline Protestants". But abandoning anything other than a two-level system would get rid of some of the helpful info we can convey. How about two different charts then: one showing historical divisions in order; the other showing current family similarities? --Tb 18:59 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think you'll find changes like this atomistically satisfying and holistically frustrating. But, they seem like reasonable proposals. Go ahead and try it. There is no harm. Mkmcconn 19:21 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Local Church (Nee)

Where would Local Church go? Is it a nonaffiliated (or non-denominational) church? I looked at some websites and cannot tell. --Menchi 19:09 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

They are an independent development based upon Protestantism, but developing in isolation in China. I think that in their current form, they resist identification with any historical lineage (which along with their distinctives gets them labelled in unfriendly terms). Mkmcconn 19:21 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Antitrinitarianism

Not sure of the implications of 'Restoration' or 'Millerite', but I'm pretty sure that the Latter Day Saints would be more comfortable under 'non-trinitarian' churches, unless all of the category they are in are non-trinitarian. I believe the same is true of Christadelphians, but less sure. DJ Clayworth 15:54, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mkmcconn: The article on the LDS doesn't seem to indicate a close relationship to Restorationism. More to the point, I would think Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian is actually a more helpful classification than the branch they came out of. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I know that these classifications are not easy. It would be most convenient if we had a stylle-sheet driven formatting for these lists, to offer different views of their relationships. But, if you are looking for the LDS view, it was the LDS wikipedians who drove the separation of "Restorationism" into a distinct category, apart from Protestantism; and, as a matter of fact, It is part of current LDS apologetics, to emphasize the relationship between the Campellites and the earliest LDS. Quite a significant number of the Millerites are non-trinitarian. Non-trinitarian thinking is also common among Congregational (Uniting/United Churches) as well. While I would personally prefer to remove these from the list of "Christian denominations", along with Gnostics and other cults, becaue I believe that it is objectively true that they deny the Christian faith, that might say more about me and what I believe than it does about them and who they "are". Indeed, some would prefer that their church alone would be listed here. We have to go for something like a consensus. Mkmcconn 19:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you there. However the Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian divide is an important one since most denominations consider those on the other side of the divide to be non-Christians. I would venture that it is more significant than whether their origins are in Restorationsim, Protestantism or whatever. For any LDS out there would you consider Trinitarian branches of Restorationism to be just minor variants, like most Protestants would consider other branches of Protestantism to be essentially the same? 207.236.234.180 21:23, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's easy to separate Trinitarian from Antitrinitarian, when categorizing sects in, or at the fringes of, Protestantism. I think that it would require a specialized knowledge of each particular member, where the present list is easily added to according to more-or-less clearly defined "families" of denominations. Even though it gives a false appearance of simplicity to do it this way, it's asking for trouble to do it the other way. Maybe we could add key codes indicating trinitarian and antitrinitarian members of each group? That might make good sense, since you're right that this distinction is basic on both sides. Mkmcconn 22:28, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Quakers

I moved Quakers (formally Religious Society of Friends) from Pietist to Non-trinitarian. Since all agree that Quakerism is non-creedal, it is very hard to state authoritatively exactly what Quakers do or do not believe and hence hard to classify them. But here are my reasons.

First, in my limited experience of modern Quakerism it seems to me to resemble Unitarianism more closely than it resembles the Church of God or the Moravians and it seemed to me that they sort of belong in the same category. This is perhaps based as much on social and economic considerations as theological.

Second, with regard to the Trinity I think it can at least be said that Quaker doctrine is poorly defined, or not spelled out, or deliberately vague.

in Rosten's Religions of America, in answer to the question "How to Friends Feel about the Trinity, Richmond P. Miller replied "there is wide freedom for personal opinion... Quakerism is based on a religious way of life rather than accepted dogmas. The Quaker faith is a religion of experience. Whatever is known experimentally about God, the Holy Spirit, the Christ Within, becomes the true guide. Friends tend to believe in the immance of God rather than His transcendence." R. W. Tucker replied " 'Trinity' is not a term found in Scripture."

Penn wrote "[Quakers] believe in the Holy Three or Trinity of Father, Word, and Spirit, according to Scripture.... but they are very tender of quitting scripter terms and phrases for schoolmen's; such as 'distinct and separate persons...' and they judge that a curious inquiry into those high and divine relations... tend little to godliness and less to peace."

I think it is accurate to say that many but by no means all modern Quakers believe in the divinity of Jesus, and the word trinity is not a word that is commonly encountered in modern Friends' discourse. In the United States, Friends' United Meeting is more conservative and closer to mainstream U. S. Protestant beliefs than Friends' General Council, but the term Quaker includes both.

When a denomination has no creed, and individuals within it have a wide range of opinion on the Trinity, I think it is reasonable to call the denomination as a whole "non-Trinitarian."

Dpbsmith 02:55, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think that it's a mistake to put the Quakers in the Non-trinitarians. As discussed above, it is harder to uniformly categorize groups in these terms. Quakers are all over the map, because they are anti-dogmatic. It does not clarify who they are, and where they belong in the scheme of things, to put them there. You might be objecting to putting them under "Protestantism", for the same reason that "Restorationists" don't like to be called Protestant. In that case, perhaps it would be better to put them under Restorationists for the same reasons that Southcottites are there: for the sake of pointing out the "family" resemblance, but for lack of a more exact association. Would that be a good compromise? Mkmcconn 02:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't really think so, but that's mostly because, well, "Restorationist" and "Southcottite" don't mean very much to me. I.e. it's not a strongly held or well-informed opinion on my part.

It could be argued that Quakers belong in a category all to themselves. Non-creedal denominations, perhaps. Are there other Christian denominations that are explicitly non-creedal?

Do you agree that they don't belong in "Pietists," anyway?

I was going to add that the very good Wikipedia article on Quakers does not include the word "Trinity," (nor the word "Pietist"). Re classifying them as "Protestant" the article says "Although Evangelical and programmed Quakerism has become more akin to Protestantism, many Quakers consider their faith neither Protestant nor Catholic, but rather an expression of a third way. "

Dpbsmith 03:18, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are numerous "prophetic" movements, which consider themselves to be a radical restoration of Christianity, many of which predate the Second Great Awakening - such as Swedenborgianism - I don't know where to put groups like that; "intellectually" and historically they are related to Pietism, which in general was a move away from dogma and a turning toward mystical revelation. The radical Anabaptists were among these, but they came before the Pietist and Holiness movements which stirred the general trend that brought about Methodism and the Quakers. An important line of the Anabaptist descendant groups is the Anti-trinitarian (and anti-mystical) Socinians. Socinian arguments are common among Millerite antitrinitarians. There are numerous other groups which claim to be based on the Bible alone, and reject traditional definitions of the Trinity. As I argue above, once you begin grouping these sects by what they specifically believe, instead of "who they are" and "where they come from", the list will become very confusing. Mkmcconn\

That's what I mean by "atomistically satisfying and holistically frustrating", in reference to Anglicanism, above. Particular groups within the most general group do not really belong with the general group, if measured by what they actually teach, and how some individuals perceive themselves. But you have to know very particular things about them, in order to understand why that is. That's why I think that it's better to arrange groups where you would "roughly" expect to find them, and allow the particular articles to sort out the details. Mkmcconn 03:50, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's a puzzlement and I'm out of my depth... I took my one shot at editing this page and will leave it alone henceforth. I do have a suggestion, though. You say "As I argue above, once you begin grouping these sects by what they specifically believe, instead of 'who they are' and 'where they come from', the list will become very confusing." The heading says "List of Christian denominations ordered by historical and doctrinal relationships." It seems to me that you're really arguing for grouping on historical relationships alone, on the basis that a) being historical, these relationships are stable, and b) being historical, these relationships are both more objective and less controversial. Which makes sense. But perhaps the introductory paragraph should say "ordered by historical relationships" and give a brief explanation and justification of what this means and why it's being done that way. Dpbsmith 13:34, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

P.S. In the U.S., the Mennonites, Plymouth Brethren, and Quakers are frequently grouped together as the "historic peace churches." Just to add another random thought... Dpbsmith 13:36, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You're making a good point, here. Although, the historical lineage isn't strictly adhered to, either. I'm only thinking, if a reader comes looking for [[Unitarian Congregational Fellowship of Mary the Mother of God, Lutheran Church]], it should be found first where they would most likely look for it; and that's why I don't think that Quakers should be listed under Nontrinitarian. I'll give some more thought to it, and await further input from you and others about how to handle this frequently arising problem of taxonomy. Mkmcconn 13:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it might be easier to to group them mostly by historical relationships; there needs to be some flexibility. Would it get too messy if we added a note to groups like the Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church that they're Baptist as well as Pentecostal (in terms of where they could be grouped), or maybe do that just for ones where the name doesn't make it as obvious as in this case?

To answer an earlier question, I believe the Disciples of Christ denomination is explicitly non-creedal, and the related Church of Christ probably is as well. I'm sure there are others. Wesley 17:07, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Brethren

I established a separate group under Anabaptist (though an argument could be made to move them under Pietist), and I labeled them Schwarzenau Brethren (recognizing their origin and differentiating from other "Brethren" groups). I moved the Old German Baptist Brethren there, because they are "Brethren" rather than "Baptist" in origin. I added other Schwarzenau Brethren groups. Unrelated, but I also moved Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church under Pentecostal. They grew out of the Free Will Baptists, but are Pentecostal in doctrine and practice, and seem to identify with the Pentecostal rather than Baptist movement, as seen, for example, in their membership in the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America. Rlvaughn 04:06, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unity

"Unity Chu" caught my eye and I figure it has to be a typo. The Association of Unity Churches website consistently refers to the belief system by the single word "Unity" so that's how I listed it. Their Q&A page says "Unity and Christian Science, as well as many other New Thought groups, had their beginnings in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Many of the leaders in these groups studied under the same teachers...." so it ssems to be under an appropriate subhead.

Dpbsmith 19:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ready for sub-headings?

Do y'all think that the article would be improved by replacing the outline structure with a heading structure, that would show up in the TOC? I'm thinking, just only the first level of the outline should be replaced with headings; e.g., instead of

* Anglicans

it would be:

===Anglicans===

Mkmcconn 16:09, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I experimented with converting the list from bullets to TOC, and it just doesn't work. I withdraw my suggestion. Mkmcconn 18:24, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Definition of Christian" section

I do not think that the new section should survive. The list as a whole contains so many aberrant groups that it is beyond fathoming how any of them can be called the same faith - but to attempt to sort out the "good" sects from the "bad" sects is a practical impossibility. What you are starting by beginning a list of groups "most denominiations" would not define as Christian, will certainly devolve into collecting a "list of cults" - an enterprise which is doomed from the start, especially in the context of a work like Wikipedia. It is fundamentally misleading, because it cannot possibly be complete even if it were neutral, and it is unnecessarily provocative. The articles each make it clear that these groups are radically at odds with everyone else. Mkmcconn 22:17, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wanted to be minimalist about it. What I wrote in this section is undoubtedly true, and I didn't want to go beyond it, at least not without more evidence which I don't have. The trouble is that unless some comment is added to the list at present, the reader is left thinking that all these denominations believe much the same thing. And of course that is true for about 95% of them - you couldn't slide a bible page between the doctrinal views of some of them. But for the more glaring discrepancies I wanted to at least add a note. Better a partial list than no list at all. DJ Clayworth 22:22, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with the intention, but how to decide what is Christian is a systematic problem, in any list of modern denominations. Here, it's been more or less decided to leave the question undecided, and instead to attempt to accurately portray the controversies in the individual articles. Every group in the list would draw the picture somewhat differently than it has been drawn, and many would object to any but themselves, or at least their family of denominations, being listed at all as "Christian". Mkmcconn 22:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe there does need to be some sort of statement of the principle on which denominations are included. Certainly any denomination that describes itself as Christian should be included. How other denominations regard it should not enter into the decision at all. I'm wondering whether that's inclusive enough; does the list currently include denominations that do not describe themselves as Christian?

For what it's worth, the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "Christian" is:

ADJ: 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. 3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. 4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

NOUN: 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

I tentatively propose the following language (but don't intend to add it to the article myself): "For the purposes of this list, a denomination is included if its founders described it as "Christian" or as having a connection with the teachings of Jesus."

I don't think that's broad enough to include Islam or Ethical Culture... :-)

Dpbsmith 13:30, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about "For the purposes of this list, a denomination is included if its founders or present leadership describe it as "Christian" or as having a connection with the teachings of Jesus." This list should depend on self-declaration of the group. Groups which claim today they are not Christian should not be included - that would be the contrary of political correctness. Groups where part of them claims to be Christians and part of them doesn't, should be listed as "Some groups among Messianic Jews/Unitarians/Rastafarians". --Irmgard 10:58, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Should Rastafarianism be included? Some of them claim to be Christian, but not all. Tuf-Kat 07:36, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Does the Christian group have a name, distinct from the more inclusive one? Garveyites, maybe? Mkmcconn 07:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell Tuf-Kat 14:25, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hinduism still might meet this definition, depending on who you ask. Mohondas Ghandi said, “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew; for, either I am all of these or I am none of these.” If present day Hindu leadership shares that sentiment, would that count as "... present leadership describe it as 'Christian'"? Many would have no problem worshipping Krishna in the form of Jesus Christ, and following the teachings of Jesus as they understand them, at least according this article: [1]. The article discusses the Hindu response to Zambia's 1996 declaration that Zambia is a Christian nation. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if Islam accepted Jesus as the Christ or Messiah to the Jews; I'm sure they could reconcile that with their belief that Jesus is a great prophet easily enough. Mohammad doesn't describe his religion as Christian, but he certainly claims a connection with the teachings of Jesus. Really, these attempts to define Christianity without prejudice need to be abandoned as hopeless. Wesley 17:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Christian Science

CS really belongs under an "other" category like (since it is) "Other Non-Trinitarian", so I'm planning to move it. While New Thought has significant influences from Mary Baker Eddy students, the non-Wiki Unity site mentioned above is pretty mistaken in labeling CS a New Thought belief, since CS disavows a great part of New Thought, particularly the latter's concept of divine personal empowerment, teaching instead complete individual dependence on and obedience to the God of Judeo-Christian history. CS identifies itself explicitly (as its name indicates) as Christian and conforms to the AHD dictionary definition above. Mary Baker Eddy founded it on an understanding of the Biblical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as the prophesied Messianic Savior of mankind and acknowledged his virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension. While CS does claim denominational uniqueness and mission consistent with and subordinate to its Biblical understanding, there is virtually not a Christian faith that in some form or another doesn't do the same, -- and the Non-Trin label strikes me as really the best you could find here. chris_rodgers 05:40, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm glad that I read your comment here; because I was preparing to put CS into the New Thought category. Mkmcconn 20:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalists

I've broken the list format by noting that many UUs are Christian, even though the UUA isn't a Christian org. Any comments on this? UtherSRG 13:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, Mkmcconn. I like it much better than what I had, although I want to change exclusively. UtherSRG 20:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Exclusively Christian meaning, "for Christians only". Any equivalent would be acceptable. Mkmcconn 21:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would suggest, in order to keep a consistent list format, and to keep the list a "List of Christian Denominations", that we list only Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (which is a Christian "denomination"). Once that article is written, people can follow links to Unitarian Universalism and Unitarian Universalist Association (which is not a specifically Christian organization, even though it has Christian members). Rlvaughn 02:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's a very decent suggestion, Rlvaughn. I support it. Mkmcconn 02:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think I can get on board with that if it includes a note like [an Independent Affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)]. Also include Magi Network as it is another Christian arm of the UUA. UtherSRG 04:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe this would look pretty good and be a satisfactory compromise:

• Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (an Independent Affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association)

What do you all think? Rlvaughn 04:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like Mkmcconn's use of a footnote instead. Mush easier to read. Thanks! UtherSRG 17:50, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Review Tb's suggestions

Some time ago, User:Tb suggested that a list should exist which roughly categorizes the descendent denominations in families related by doctrinal history. Although I think that this would be very hard to do for every group, I do agree that this would be helpful in terms of a general outline. Please review his suggestion under Anglicans above, and give thought to how we could create a list that would organize families of churches in the terms he suggests. Regrettably, it appears that Tb is no longer active, and will not be following through on what he proposed. Mkmcconn 18:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

One difficulty I see here is that the 'family tree' of religions is not just split-split-split. Mergers and subsequent resplits make creating a tree structure much more difficult, if not impossible. I don't think it is proper for this list, though. Perhaps as a separate article, since a significant number of links on the tree should be to religions which no longer exist (becuse of schism or merger or extinction). UtherSRG 18:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking. This list is very legible and easy to understand, in my opinion. Perhaps it would work to have another, briefer list (a separate page), that summarizes the tree somewhat like the tree on the Christianity page. But, I agree with you that, trying to reflect the same thing on this page would not work. Mkmcconn 18:21, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Church of Christ, Instrumental

Mkmcconn, the Church of Christ, Instrumental is a Baptist "schism". At the time I posted the article, I couldn't decide where to put them, so I just stuck them in for the time. I suppose listing them under miscellaneous is as good, if not better, as any other location. They are quite similar to Free Will Baptists. Broadly, they are "Baptistic", but the problem with putting them under Baptist, IMO, is that they do not consider themselves to be Baptists. They were slightly influenced by Methodism, but not enough to be considered Methodist or Holiness. So, considering they don't seem to fit anywhere, miscellaneous seems quite appropriate. - Rlvaughn 21:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, and for your astounding number of contributions to our articles on Christian denominations. Mkmcconn 22:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Alphabetical List

This list is by no means complete but it is an easy alphabetical reference. I was going to try and add it to the list I saw on the Christianity page when I noticed Mkmcconn had deleted it and moved part of it here.

• African Methodist Episcopal Church
• Albanian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Ambrosian (Roman rite)
• American Reformed
• Anabaptist
• Anglican (Western Rite)
• Anglican Church In America
• Apostolic Christian
• Apostolic Faith
• Armenian Church (Armenian Rite)
• Armenian Catholic Church
• Armenian Orthodox Church
• Assembly Of God
• Assembly Of God Pentecostal
• Baptist
• Baptist "Southern Baptist Convention"
• Baptist American
• Baptist Bible
• Baptist Free Will
• Baptist General Association Of Regular
• Baptist Independent
• Baptist Missionary
• Baptist National
• Belarussian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Bible
• Bible Church
• Brethren
• Brethren Church Of The
• Brethren Evangelical United
• Brethren Grace
• Brethren In Christ Church
• Brethren Mennonite
• Brethren Plymouth
• Brethren United
• Bulgarian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches
• Calvary Bible
• Calvary Chapel
• Calvinist
• Chaldean (Chaldean Rite)
• Christian And Missionary Alliance
• Christian Church
• Christian Disciples
• Christian Reformed Church In North America
• Christian Union
• Church Of Christ
• Church Of Christ United
• Church Of God
• Church Of God In Christ Holiness
• Church Of Holiness
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
• Church Of Prophecy
• Church Of The Living God
• Congregationalist
• Coptic (Alexandrian Rite)
• Croatian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Disciples Of Christ
• Disciples Of God
• Dutch Reformed
• Evangelical Congregational
• Evangelical Covenant
• Evangelical Free Church Of America
• Evangelical Reformed
• Faith Gospel Tabernacle
• Friends
• Ge'ez (Alexandrian Rite)
• Georgian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Grace Reformed
• Greek Catholic
• Greek Church (Byzantine rite)
• Holiness
• Holiness Church Of God
• Hungarian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Hungarian Reformed
• International Pentecostal Holiness
• Jacobite
• Latin or Roman Church (Roman rite)
• Latvian Lutheran
• Lutheran
• Malankarese (Antiochene Rite)
• Mandaean Reformed

• Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India
• Maronite (Antiochene Rite)
• Melkite (Byzantine rite)
• Mennonite
• Messianic
• Methodist
• Methodist Evangelical
• Methodist Free
• Methodist Primitive
• Methodist United
• Methodist Wesleyan
• Ministry
• Missionary Church
• Missionary Covenant
• Moravian
• Mormon
• Nazarene
• Nestorian (Chaldean Rite)
• New Testament Christian
• Non-Denominational
• Old Calendar Greek Orthodox
• Open Bible
• Orthodox
• Orthodox Eastern
• Orthodox Greek
• Orthodox Russian
• Paleoemerologites (Schismatic Old Calendar Orthodox)
• Pentecostal
• Pentecostal Apostolic
• Pentecostal Church of God
• Pilgring Holiness
• Presbyterian
• Presbyterian Church In America
• Presbyterian Orthodox
• Presbyterian United
• Reform Church
• Reformed
• Roman Catholic
• Romanian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Russian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Ruthenian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Serbian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Seventh Day Adventist
• Slovak Church (Byzantine rite)
• Syriac (Antiochene Rite)
• Syro-Malabarese (Chaldean Rite)
• Tewahedo
• The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
• The Church Of God Of Prophecy

• The Salvation Army
• Ukrainian Church (Byzantine rite)
• Unitarian
• United Church Of Canada
• United Holiness
• United Zion
• Universal Life Church
• Worldwide Church Of God

If your church is here link it to the relevant article. If it is missing add it here, and if you know two churches to be the same then link them to the same entry.

Please look at the List of Christian denominations article itself, and do the work of putting these churches where they belong. There are literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, only a fraction of which are listed in the article. I do appreciate the unique items you have provided, which were not yet in the list that has been started. But, listing them here is not helpful. Also, following the Baptist example, you might consider detail pages for churches that have a fully shared identity. (See List of Baptist sub-denominations Mkmcconn 16:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou for the offer, but the taxonomy route is far to complicated for me. A nice plain and simple alphabetical index is much easier to make and use. The taxonomy of these churches would be much more useful for an article about Church History following a simple chronological timeline for the emmergence of church denominations. I will look at the article and post a revamp in alphabetical order just to see what it looks like. It can always be reverted to the previous version. Actually the route which has been taken here (which I must say is an impressive but daunting project) would be much more suited to an article about full communion. would it be right to say that all of the churches taxed together under one category are in full communion with each other?

This kind of information isn't so difficult to find. Any American Yellow Pages can assist you to discern these rudimentary relationships - there are lists like this elsewhere on-line, besides Wikipedia, for further reference. Although it is tempting to revamp the work done here, it will be appreciated by all if that temptation is resisted. Compare your alphabetical list above - which provides zero information, and simply lists names, with the article itself, which gives a general outline meaningful to people who care about such things. Leave this list where it is, and do not make alphabetical lists, please; but do add items as you are able. The list, while dauntingly large, is not very hard to navigate. If even so, you don't feel qualified to add to it, then perhaps your talents would be better put to use on some other topic than one pertaining to the Christian religion? Mkmcconn 04:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Using a yellow pages is hardly an objective or sound academic approach. Anyway I won't revamp it but as it is, it really isn't a simple list of christian denominations as the title implies but rather attempts to identify the relationship of churches to each other and therefore is subject to problems of NPOV (as I can see from discussions above) and repetition. But if its going for the safety of categorising by full communion then the repetitions are acceptable though it would this belongs on that page and not here. I will edit in the churches I know about as if it were a list of categorisation by full communion since that really is the most objective approach to taxonomy. The best way to categorise a church would be by its apparent structure, and type, of its ceremonies. In this way a church may be termed for example Armenian Catholic then it will either be unafiliated or in full communion with a larger body like The Papacy or The Orthodox Communion. Many people don't realise that certain churches like just for example Russian Churches may be catholic in their structure & type of ceremonies but may be either unaffiliated, or in full communion with other churches under The Papacy or in full communion with The Orthodox Communion or even (as is the case in parts of siberia these days) even be with a body like UCC. There are also problems with the category terminology since there are often more than one common way of describing a church. E.G. Orthodox Churches may call themselves Catholic so there is no difference between Orthodox Catholic Churches & Orthodox Churches except when the individual church may be in full communion with Rome in which case it may look to all intents & purposes to be orthodox but is not actually orthodox because it is not with the orthodox communion. Keep trying everyone it will sort itself out eventually!

---

This is a thorny matter. I tend to group Protestants and Anglicans under the banner of "Reformed", as a perusal of the Winchester Declaration would definitely put the Anglican into the Reformation camp, even if they are not "Protestants of the name". The problem with grouping by ceremonies is that it makes things like the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochene Archdiocese of America (Eastern Orthodox) really hard to classify. They're in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy but have a Liturgy based on the Book of Common Prayer.

In short, it's a taxonomical mess. Dogface 04:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the best route would be to classify them in their associations of full communion or partial communion. At least it will be NPOV. It is not fair to call it a mess though. It is a very good effort. The enormity of the task is the reason for its pitholes.

I admit that I am getting a bit frustrated with this. On the one hand we have people who want to change the list to an alphabetical one, because describing families of denominations is too hard. On the other hand, we have folks wanting to apply a higher standard, and group churches by full or partial communion - even though the ecumenical movement groups churches across denominational lines - and THEN calls this a more neutral description of Christian denominations! Please let the list grow in its present form, and we'll prune it into shape, and create alternative listings. Mkmcconn 23:11, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

What is with the title "Orthodox Catholic" including the (very) non-Catholic Orthodox? Doesn't that strike anyone else as confused? Oh, and the Papacy word reminds me, where is the slurs section? I know I've seen a list of slurs or insults, but I forget where, and I can't find it under "slurs" or "insults". Ha, maybe if I read the Papacy article it links directly to the slurs page :)

The "Orthodox Catholic church" is a common designation, but it might not be the best term to use here. It doesn't mean that they are Roman Catholics; but because that word is so tightly bound to Rome, it might mislead some. Mkmcconn 23:04, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

What is with the two blank headers under Churches in full communion with the Holy See? (single asterisk ones) Rmhermen 23:15, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

They were culled from Optim's alphabetical list. I wasn't familiar with many of them, and so I left them to stand out in case someone else could discern whether they belong under the Roman Catholics or under the Orthodox. Mkmcconn 02:42, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

WTF?

Why are Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Catholicism branched under Catholicism, while Restorationism is seperate from Protestantism? This is what I thought it was:

Christianity

• Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Coptic Orthodoxy
  • Syriac Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Eritrian Orthodoxy
  • Ethiopian Orthodoxy
• Nestorianism
  • Assyrian Church of the East
• Catholicism
• Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Byzantine (Constantinople) Orthodoxy
  • Greek Orthodoxy
  • Russian Orthodoxy
  • Serbian Orthodoxy
• Protestantism
  • Anglicanism
  • Mainline Protestantism
  • Anabaptism
    • Baptist Church
    • Mennonites
    • Amish
  • Restorationism
    • Latter Day-saints
    • Jehovah's Witness
  • Nontrinitarian Protestantism

I think this page really needs an overhaul. 60.231.16.132 (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pentecostals and Presbyterians

If Anglicans and the Society of Friends get their own category apart from Protestants, then why don't Presbyterians and Pentecostals get separate billing. I used to be Pentecostal and now I am Presbyterian. There are little to no similarities. We worship differently, we believe different things about salvation and end times. We have no historical connection. Pentecostals are more like Restorationists. This whole thing where everybody gets to be a Protestant if they are neither Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic has got to stop. Protestants include (very broadly in my opinion) Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, and Baptists.

Then there are Anabaptists, Pietists, and Restorationists. They are not Protestants. Anglicanism considers itself a via-media, they acknowledge a pre-reformation heritage, but the Church of England apart from either Rome or Orthodoxy, is a product of the Reformation. They are more like a via media between Reformed and Lutheran. And Reformed are also catholic, see [reformedcatholicism.com]

--Rclose 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Roman" Catholic not a denomination

Catholicism is not a denomination. It is one of the 3 largest branches of Christianity and isn't divided up at all. It would kind of be like calling protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy a donomination. Denominations are supposed to be groups within a branch of Christianity, like Lutherans, Calvinists, and Baptists under Protestantism.

Orthodox

I deleted about the Syrian church in India from the Eastern Orthodox because it is not Eastern Orthodox, it is Oriental Orthodox (which see).

Shakers are not Quakers

To group the Shakers with the Quakers is a serious error. The two are not related by anything other than that both contain "akers." I'm not sure where Shakers belongs, but I have removed it from the Quaker sub-category. 70.255.31.12 18:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic"

I changed some of the referenced to "Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic" as the term "Roman" is usually used by anti-catholics and considered offensive to eastern Catholics (since it implies that the Latin rite is the only true part of the Catholic church.) If we need a way to distinguish those who use the term "Catholic" who follow the Pope from those who use the term "Catholic" who don't follow the Pope, we could describe them as "churches in communion with Rome" or "churches in communion with the bishop of Rome." I've seen the former more commonly used in Catholic circles.

In ecclesiology, "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite church within the Catholic Church, which is the proper name of the church in comunion with Rome. Small 'c' catholic can refer more broadly to other churches having a catholic character but are not in communion with Rome. Protoclete 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You can not simply drop "Roman" in "Roman Catholic"

Let me explain, the Catholic Church is divided in Patriarchates. One of them is the Roman Patriarchate. The Patriarchates are not subordianted to each other, but they recognise each other as being segments of the same Church. For instance, Antiorchian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem are Patriarchates of Catholic Church, but they are not subordinate to Roma.

Now it should be easy to undestand why it is offensive to call the whole Catholic Church (including the other Partriarchates) as "Roman Catholic Church". But it is also offensive, to make call Catholic only the the Roman Catholic Church. You are excluding legitime Catholic Patriarchates from Catholicism.

Since the Patriaarchates regognise each other as being part of the same Church, the expression "churches in communion with Rome" is very ambigous. A better term to describe what you meant by "churches in communion with Rome" would be "churches under Rome Patriarchate authority".

---

What should be done about those hanging lists, under Catholicism? should we just collapse them into a single long list? Do they belong together? I don't know anything about most of them. Mkmcconn 06:06, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For sure some of them are not in the communion with Holy See, but they are not of the Protestant tradition. There are for exemple a group of Old-Catholic churches or Polish Christian churches (Mariavite, Polish Catholic). I started the division, but I don't know how to call them :( Slawojarek 11:52, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm wondering if many of them are simply the same Eastern churches listed above, called "Catholic" instead of "Orthodox". Is there an "Ethiopian Catholic", as well as an "Ethiopian Orthodox"? Mkmcconn 15:50, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are 23 churches in the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic is the largest by far, but most of the rest are exactly counterparts to Orthodox churches. The liturgy and tradition between, say, the Coptic Catholic and Coptic Orthodox is the same; the difference is whether in communion with the bishop of Rome (Catholic) or not (Orthodox). Protoclete 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't agree so much with you, because ALL the Orthodox (both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) Churches of the world always call themselves Orthodox Catholic, and the Pope of Rome they call Roman Catholic. This has also been adopted by the UN, and, of course, it has always been adopted also by the Roman Catholic themselves. And, also the Anglican Communion defines itself as Catholic, as the Old Catholic Church, who is part of it. ( comment by 195.218.12.74 on 17 March 2007 )

It is false to say that the UN has adopted the "roman" terminology. In fact, "Catholic" is used in preference to "Roman Catholic" by 2450:330 on un.org. It is also false to say that the Orthodox Churches always call themselves "Orthodox Catholic." They certainly consider themselves the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", but refer to themselves as "Orthodox Churches". The Anglican communion may define itself as catholic, but it refers to itself as the "Anglican Communion." There is one body that is commonly called and commonly uses the name "Catholic Church" - it is the one described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. -SynKobiety 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical Free Church

I've added the Evangelical Free Church of America to the Protestant list under "Misc. movement churches". I'm not sure if there is a better place to put them, and perhaps someone who is more familiar with them can make a better decision. They have roots in Scandinavian Lutheranism, pietism, and American revivalism. They have been variously categorized. For example, the 11th edition of Handbook of Denominations places them under "Brethren" churches, which has some merit, but which I personally think is more confusing than helpful. The Encyclopedia of American Religions groups them as Pietist, which is probably historically correct, but to me does not seem to capture the current status of the body. The Polis Denominational Taxonomy lists them as "Evangelical Protestant (Revivalist/Rational)", which we, of course, do not have here. Anyway, if someone comes up with a better solution, please move the Evangelical Free Church. - Rlvaughn 17:43, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-Looks good to me...the problem with this entire page is that, in America, despite so many splinter groups formed, now there are broad movements that freely cross lines of the old groups. There's a lot of cross pollination (wouldn't you expect that from a beekeeper, eh?) that's gone on. Among evangelicals, shared music, worship styles, para-church groups, shared concerns, etc., have blurred old lines. In the camp meeting areas of the South you can visit a Methodist or Baptist church, and can only tell the difference in worship styles in subtle ways (not to speak of the Free Will Baptists). Folks from the confessing movement within the Presbyterian Church or the confessing movement within the United Methodist Church have more in common with each other than with the liberal elements within the respective churches. It almost seems like there should be a caveat, or boilerplate on this page, to warn people that heritage is not the only factor in what makes a church today, that rigid lines on a chart are not entirely descriptive of the fact... Pollinator 02:56, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-The best positioning for the EFCA, of course, would be with the Evangelical Protestant churches (it is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, after all.) Perhaps another "broad category" of Evangelical would be worth considering? --Tim4christ17 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity

Is Celtic Christianity really a part of Catholicism or is it a part of Orthodoxy? I know that it could be classified as Catholicism in the loose sense, as could most other Christian churches. What I mean is, since it is not a part of the Catholic Communion, is it a church historically related to the Roman Catholic Church? If it isn't, then shouldn't it go under Orthodoxy? Pmadrid 13:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The answer is complicated, and a fair argument could probably be made either way. I think I would argue for it to be included under Orthodoxy, based on the (probably biased) articles found at http://www.orthodoxireland.com/history. Bear in mind that true "Celtic Christianity" has been gone for a while now, just as true Celts have apparently been gone for a while, so it's really a matter of how you interpret history. Wesley 15:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Church of the East

I couldn't find The Church of the East on this page? Is it here? Can somebody help me? Tom 18:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which one -the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Church of the East, the American Church of the East, Syrian Orthodox Church of the East, Orthodox Church of the East, or others. Generally they fall under Nestorian churches. Rmhermen 21:32, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Church of Christ, Scientist

The double-asterisked suggestion it could alternately be categorized as one of the New Thought churches is really not accurate. Notwithstanding some borrowed language by NT, there are pretty strong antitheses between NT and CS. NT is arguably an offshoot of CS by way of disaffected students of Eddy with eclectic influxes of Asian thought and deification of man, but that does not by any stretch harmonize CS to NT. That labelling would be analogous to classifying the People's Temple under the label of mainstream Christianity simply because that's where Jim Jones got his start. It's my plan to pull the comment/note. Chris Rodgers 09:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've remove the Church of Christ, Scientist from the Non-trinitarion list.

• The second tenet of the church states: "We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or devine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.

I added Church of Christ, Scientist to the Millerites and Comparable groups section of Restorationism because of this statement in the Christian Science manual, that the church was "...designed to commemorate the work and works of our Master, which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing."

To me this group seems the most fitting with the religion and the lists desire to "...reflect the self-understanding of each denomination". Jonamerica 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm reinstating it. CS is positively non-Trinitarian.

The second tenet was Eddy's allusion to key traditional ideas with her own distinct perspective and without equating them. In order for a teaching to be trinitarian (please read the article if you don't understand this), you have to be able to equate any person of the Trinity with God, and CS does not do this with Jesus, and it makes no apology for not doing so. I assume I don't have to provide you with references for that, she states it directly, and also uses traditional non-trinitarian arguments against that teaching. There is no gain in waffling to disguise a fact in the name of false popularity, but lots wrong in it. Chris Rodgers 07:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Red-linked denominations

Is anyone double-checking the actual existence of the red-linked denominations? Someone just added "Calvinistic Churches, USA" but I get no Google hits at all for either "Calvinistic Churches USA" or "Calvinist Churches USA". So it seems there is not really any such group. I haven't deleted it, though, because I think deletion should be consistent. Is anyone else keeping an eye on the red links? --Angr 07:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Apostolic Church

Does anyone know enough about the New Apostolic Church[2] to figure out where to put it in this list? --Angr/_comhrá 22:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've not heard of it, and couldn't decide from their website. There is a site here - Doctrine of the New Apostlic Church- that purports to explain their doctrine, though it is probably not exactly objective. - Rlvaughn 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, from de:Neuapostolische Kirche I have gleaned that they broke off from the Catholic Apostolic Church, which seems to be a Church Calling Itself Catholic But Not In Communion With The Roman See, which is where I just put that. But that doesn't mean that's the right place for the NAK (after all, the Methodists broke off from the Anglicans, but are listed under Protestants, not under Anglicans). --Angr/_comhrá 22:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism POV problem

I note the following headings

• 1 Catholicism
  • 1.1 Churches of the Roman Catholic Communion
  • 1.2 Describing themselves as Catholic, but not in full communion with the Roman See

The problem is that just about all Christian denominations would 'describe themselves as Catholic' (with or without capitalisation, which is irrelevant). Certainly I know of no Protestant theologian who would not claim this designation. It is only that the Roman Catholic Church would deny the title to all but those denominations closest to their theology - a POV that many Protestants find objectionable. Thus, these headings are not NPOV.

I'm struggling to think how to neutrally re-categorise this. The subheading 'Catholicism' certainly has to go, and 1.2 could read 'Churches considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be Catholic, but not in ...' - however that seems a little awkward. Any other thoughts? --Doc Glasgow 21:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I think those headings could use some reworking, but unfortunately don't have any suggestions to help toward that end. From my standpoint (Baptist and in the southern USA) though, I don't think that all that many Protestants find it objectionable to not be called "Catholic". I would also suggest that the capitalization issue is not completely irrelevant. Most here using the term for a universal body made up of all Christ's people use "catholic" (as in the Apostles' Creed), leaving the capitalized version to refer to a denominational body. - Rlvaughn 22:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the list under 1.2 really is is churches that have split off from the Roman Catholic church more recently than the Protestant Reformation and Henry VIII. Maybe we could go with something like:

• 1 Roman Catholicism and its recent offshoots
  • 1.1 Churches of the Roman Catholic Communion
  • 1.2 Churches split from the Roman See since the 19th century [or whatever the earliest split was among churches in this group]

--Angr/_comhrá 22:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I could live with that. I guess when I say 'most protestants' I'm refering to theologians and ministers. I'm Presbyterian and our constitution certainly affirms that we are 'Catholic'[[3]] --Doc Glasgow 22:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Doc. I hadn't thought of it, but the capitalization issue may be more of differences of "conventional" spellings between "English English" and "US English" than anything else. I think I you'll rarely see it capitalized here, unless it means a body such as the Roman Catholic Church. If the usage elsewhere includes capitalization, though, that would strengthen the need for changing it. I'm not against changing it anyway. - Rlvaughn 22:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Denominations, not organizations

I don't understand why every country group of congregations is listed here as a "denomination". Christian denominations makes no such universal distinction, but speaks in idealogical terms. Sure, countries under the same denominiational header could reasonably be classified differently, but is there any fundamental idealogical difference between Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and the Presbyterian Church of Australia? Do they describe themselves as belonging to different denominations? For instance, the baptist unions; they baptist organizations, not different sub-denominations.

To be consistent with the logic of the current list, shouldn't *every* country be listed here? But wouldn't that be a ridiculously long list?

This list is confusing and illogical. It should be a list of self-described denominations and lists of organizations should be separate.

Or am I missing some point? ··gracefool |☺ 08:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, these are denominations. The first line of the denomination article is "A denomination in the Christian sense is an identifiable religious body, organization under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine." These are separate organizations with separate rules and leaderships although the theological positions may be nearly identical. Rmhermen 01:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

So they shouldn't be listed here, should they? Or at least, it should be made clear which items in the "list of denominations" actually are denominations, and which aren't. ··gracefool |☺ 06:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are all denominations --under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine.. They should all be listed. Which ones do you question? Rmhermen 13:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, for my last comment I read your reply wrongly. My reasoning is that a denomination is not "any identifiable religious group", as the denomination article defines. Every single church group could be a denomination by that definition, no? I think denominations should be listed here only if they regard themselves as a denomination - surely that's the only unbiased way to do it. ··gracefool |☺ 09:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that removing the Baptist and Anglican churches from a list of churches in the world would be more biased not less. Rmhermen 12:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

And what about all the groups that say "we're not a denomination, we're just part of the church" or "we're not a denomination, we alone are the One True Church" or other variations on that theme. Surely we shouldn't remove all those groups because they claim they aren't "denominations." I guess if you don't like the working definition of a denomination that's there now, is there at least an alternative definition you'd like to propose? I think the current one will be hard to actually improve upon, but hey, improvements are always welcome. Wesley 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's nearly impossible to come up with a mutually exclusive definition of denomination and organization. I recently added Cooperative Baptist Fellowship to Category:Baptist organizations but Northern Baptist Convention to Category:Baptist denominations, based purely on the fact that the CBF article says the group resists becoming a denomination, and the fact that American Baptist Churches USA (the new name of the NBC) is in the denomination category. But are they really structurally different from each other? Who knows? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Erm, how does distinguishing on the basis of self-regard not work? I will change the article name to "List of Christian churches by country" or similar - eg. "Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand" and "Presbyterian Church of Australia" are NOT different denominations in anyone's book. ··gracefool |☺ 05:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs Catholic

The heading List_of_Christian_denominations#Churches_closely_related_to.2C_but_not_in_full_communion_with.2C_the_Catholic_Church seems nonsensical unless it states more clearly which Catholic Church. As discussed elsewhere the churches associated with the Pope/Roman Catholic Church - maybe it should reference those churches accepting/not accepting the Primacy of the Roman pontiff. Note the Catholic Communion link redirects to the RCC article Paul foord 13:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

where?

hi. i dont know much about Christian denomination classifications, but i have recently created an article on the Indian Shaker Church. i dont know much about this either. what i have read is that this is combination of indigenous, Catholic, and Protestant practices & beliefs. i put it under Protestant since i cant see where else to put it. maybe someone more knowledgeable can put it in a more fitting place. peace – ishwar  (speak) 08:30, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Changing article name

Just to highlight, I will change the article name to "List of Christian churches by country" or similar if no-one objects. Either that, or the list is changed to indicate idealogical denominations, not presumed country organizations. ··gracefool |☺ 06:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I object. It's not a list by country. Many of the denominations listed here have nothing to do with a country, such as Roman Catholic Church or Moravians. Many of the Anglican churches listed cover more than one country: the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, the Church of Ireland, the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, the Church of the Province of West Africa, and the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East are all transnational; even the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the United States of America are transnational since they includes overseas dioceses like the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe and Province II and Province IX of the ECUSA. This list is organized by ideological denominations first, and then grouped into divisions alphabetically. And the various groups within each denomination can have great ideological differences between them, too; just look at Anglican views of homosexuality, for example, to see how very different the ideologies of the ECUSA and the Province of Uganda can be. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, I agree "List of Christian churches by country" would also be inaccurate. But you admit it's not actually a list of denominations, but a list of denominations and subgroups. And besides, there are plenty of subgroups listed with very little if any in the way of idealogical differences. Should it be changed to "List of Christian denominations and subgroups"? Should any effort be made to distinguish between groups that have (self-regarded, of course) significant idealogical differences and those that don't? ··gracefool |☺ 23:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This list makes no effort to distinguish ideological or theological differences between groups. It merely lists self-organized independent groups, i.e. denominations and denominational equivalents. Rmhermen 00:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Even though there may be separately listed churches that have virtually no ideological differences, it would be way too much work to find out which ones those are, and would open a Pandora's box of non-NPOV with people arguing over whether church A and church B have significantly different ideological views to warrant being separated or whatever. No. The list as it is is NPOV and informative, and the title is accurate. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you just say that it's not a list of just denominations? So "List of Christian denominations and subgroups" would be better, right? ··gracefool |☺ 12:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

-That probably is too fine a point. Paul foord 12:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I never said it isn't a list of denominations. I don't think we should get into the problem of what's a denomination and what's a subgroup of a denomination. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it just as bad to imply that two groups are different denominations, as it is to imply they are of the same denomination? Effectively, that's what the article is doing at the moment - it implies they're all denominations, which is clearly false. ··gracefool |☺ 13:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I still believe that you are using a different definition of denomination. Could you provide some examples of where you believe that the list contains two groups that we claim are different denominations that are not, in fact, denominations? Or any groups that are sub-groups and not denominations on the list? Rmhermen 13:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There are denominations and families of denominations - so the Churches of Christ in Australia is a denomination in its own right, it belongs in the same family of denominations as the Disciples of Christ - another denomination, I would not see these of being subgroups of some super denomination. Denominations may be national, or transnational. I think the intro to the article covers it. Paul foord 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

To Rmhermen and Paul foord - please see my comments in the previous discussion. Have a look at the examples at Christian denomination - all examples have idealogical differences, not *just* locational differences. Also, if two sub-groups do not consider themselves as belonging to different denominations, who are we to say they are wrong? ··gracefool |☺

Using the specific example of "Churches of Christ in Australia" that you already mentioned, it definitely merits being mentioned separately from the rest of "Church of Christ," just as the article currently has it. It appears to share common roots in the Restoration movement, but it is DEFINITELY distinct in doctrine from "Churches of Christ" in a number of ways, most notably the acceptance of supra-congregational organizations and the ordination of women. So I think that a group that defines itself as a separate denomination should be listed separately.

However, in this same family of "denominations," if you use only "Does the group identify itself as a denomination?" you would have to eliminate "Church of Christ" from that list, because (a) there's no denominational authority or structure and (b) most congregations actively resist the idea of "Church of Christ" as a denomination and make a point of emphasizing themselves as "nondenominational" or even "undenominational." (The few exceptions don't have any kind of central authority, either, but simply concede to referring to the Church of Christ as a denomination more or less on the basis of "If it looks like a duck." They refer to how denominational the group has become despite its official resistance.) Lawikitejana 01:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

validation of this list?

Is it just me or is it time to validate this list and compare it to a NPOV source? There seems to be many groups here. Because of that, it's kinda hard to make sense of the list. The NPOV source I would recommend for this task is the Frank Mead and Samuel Hill's Handbook of Denominations in the United States. This book has short entries on most Christian denominations and some non Christian groups (i.e. LDS, JWs, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam). It's a great resource. It's ISBN 0687069831. - Hoshie | 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that book might be a good place to start verification, but of course this list is worldwide, not just the United States. But you're not the only one thinking this way; if you look way up at the top of this talk page, you'll see I complained months ago about the number of red links on this page and asked whether anyone is making sure the listed denominations actually exist. Apparently no one is. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I keep this list on my watchlist, but haven't done any work on it in quite a while. I believe I can verify that all of the Baptists on the list do actually exist. Though, knowing what I know now, I would have changed the titles of some of the listings before writing articles for them. But I was new to Wikipedia then and didn't know any better. Some other resources that can be used - (1) for US religions, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, edited by J. Gordon Melton; (2) Religious Congregations & Membership in the United States 2000, by ASARB and Glenmary Research; (3) for Baptists "around the world", Baptists Around the World, edited by Albert W. Wardin, Jr.; (4) for world Christians, World Christian Encyclopedia, edited by David Barrett, et al.; and (5) for world religions of all kinds, Adherents.com. - Rlvaughn 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've also been keeping this on my watchlist had have tried to make useful amendments, as I believe it's a handy resource. What if we just deleted all the red ones? Slackbuie 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Women as theological figures

I have set up the page Women as theological figures: contributions welcome. (See the talk page for further details.)

Jackiespeel 23:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostal

Oneness Pentecostal shoudl be it's own category. It is pentecostalism except that they to not accept the Trinity and have a sandard of Holiness. This should be under Pentecostalism notable are the United Pentecostal Church, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, the Apostolic Assembly of nthe Faith in Christ Jesus, and etc.

Christian mystery religion

I've inserted this new section since " Esoteric Christianity " (early 20th century) regards itself as presenting the Holy "mysteries" spoken by the Christ in Matthew 13:11 and Luke 8:10; and " Spiritism " (mid 19th century) regards itself as the "Consoler" promised by the Christ in the Gospel of John. Both bring to public awareness the themes of 'Reincarnation' (Rebirth) and the 'Law of Karma' (Cause and Effect) in the teachings of the Christ (Bible and reincarnation); however, each one acting in a different spectrum. Also, Esoteric Christianity introduces teachings about future human development, world development toward universal brotherhood and religion change/unification toward the Christ: throughout the next six centuries toward to the Age of Aquarius (age which is regarded as an intermediary preparation to the New Galilee: the "new heavens and a new earth" to come in a future not identified time). Both may be interpreted as being related to "The Promises of the Spirit" mentioned 'twice' (receive and take) by the Christ in the Gospel of John. --194.65.22.226 17:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV

Other Adventists

Is the reason that Other Adventists are under the Sabbath Keeping Christian Churches, one of convienience? Ansell 07:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mormons

Is there a reason the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not include an entry in this listing? Seems kind of unusual to omit such a large Christian organization when so many other tiny or even extinct and non-existent groups are listed.

I returned Mormons - it keeps getting removed. I am not aware that any of the listed denominations are extinct. If you can point any out, they should get some kind of annotation. Why do you think that some of the groups are non-existent? Examples? Rmhermen 22:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Odd that someone would remove Mormons from a list of Christian denominations but not the Unification church. Anyway, the list itself contains a small handful of groups listed as extinct, under Gnosticism and Non-Trinitarians. My comment about groups that are non-existent followed the comments left earlier in the discussion by others, I have not verified the non-existence of any particular group myself.

(Preceding comments unsigned)

Response to Removal

LDS/Mormons Removed.

In the opening paragraph of the page about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it says that the LDS church "views itself as the restoration of original Christianity". Thus, they appear to consider themselves Christian. Here we try to rely on external reliable sources of information. You don't seem to have supplied any documentation for your assertion that the LDS church does not consider itself Christian. The other things that you say (Apostles' creed, remarks about Satan, etc.) were also stated without referencing any reliable source of information. They therefore count for little here. Even if you could prove that the LDS church membership held certain unusual views, that would not necessarily indicate that they cannot be considered Christian for purposes of a Wikipedia encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not about finding the one true religion - it is about providing summary information with a neutral point of view. —Wookipedian 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jahovah's Witnesses aren't really Christian either because they believe Jesus is the first creation of God but not God, and that he is St. Michael the Archangel.  It doesn't matter if they claim to be christian.  If some Hindu people broke off from Hinduism and called themselves Christian, even if they didn't have Christian beliefs, would we have to include them in this list?  Then why should we include LDS and Jahovah's witnesses in here?

I'd say that to be Christian you need to follow the teachings of Jesus and be monotheistic. Rather than have an outside entity decide this, I'd go by what the religion itself claims. If the religion claims it is monotheistic and claims it follows the teachings of Jesus, I'd say that makes it a Christian denomination. I have no idea whether Mormons claim this or not, but I'd say that is how to decide this question. WilliamKF 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mormons don't claim to be monotheistic, and although Jehovah's witnesses are monotheistic, they don't think Jesus is God. Muslims are monotheistic but believe Jesus is just a prophet and obviously they aren't christian, so I wouldn't consider Jehovah's witnesses Christian either.

The definitions of "Christian" put forward here are so limited as to exclude much of the Christian world. Let's please use the actual definition, which is: 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings. 2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

 Please stop removing the mormons. The mormons follow every rule of christianity, they are indeed christians. PLEASE STOP!!!

Anglicanism is Protestant

Anglicanism is a denomination of Protestantism. Why is it listed separately? I know there's lots of high church "we're actually the real Catholic church" mumbo jumbo, but the 39 Articles are definitively Protestant, and the Church of England obviously considered itself protestant in the 17th and 18th centuries. There are plenty of other Protestant groups which have members who would probably not characterize themselves as Protestant. Why should the Anglican Communion be treated differently from them?

Note that the fact that the Anglican Communion calls itself "catholic" is totally meaningless - all protestant churches do this. A bunch of Anglo-Catholics who want to hijack the actual history of their church (what's that about Catholic King James II persecuting Church of England bishops? Or Catholics being explicitly excluded from the British throne, but Lutheran George of Hanover perfectly acceptable?) don't get to decide this issue. Anglicanism is a Protestant domination which shares many (especially ceremonial) aspects with Catholicism. It's doctrine is entirely protestant in every way that I am aware of, being more or less Calvinistic. john k 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that "catholic" in the sense of the Anglican Communion is different than "Roman Catholic". "catholic" (small "c") is used to mean the group of all Christians, while "Roman Catholic" (or "big c" Catholic) is a "branch" of Christianity (though the history of/etymologies are the same, their acutal meanings and usages are different.) --Tim4christ17 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's also worth noting that Anglo-Catholics/particularly High Church Anglicans like to pretend they don't know this, and that Anglicanism is not Protestant. But any reading of the actual history of the Church of England should be convincing that from Elizabeth's time on, the Church of England was regarded by the outside world and by itself to be a protestant established church. It's an ahistorical modern point of view that Anglicanism is not a branch of protestantism. I don't think even the high church types of the 19th century would have claimed such a thing, and I think it's really only a possible view to hold in the wake of Vatican II, which made Catholicism more like Protestantism. This odd minority POV, essentially held only by a sect within the Anglican communion itself, should not be given prominence in this article, which should just aim for a basic summary. Any understanding of English history in which the Church of England is not considered a protestant church becomes nonsensical. john k 20:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree - The various denominations that make up the Anglican Communion may be a large "branch" of protestantism, but they are well within that fold. The only widely recognized "main branches" of Christianity are Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. The Anglican Communion isn't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, so it must be Protestant. :P --Tim4christ17 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the non-Chalcedonian branches (Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian) don't fit well into any of those three (they are eastern rite churches, so they outwardly resemble eastern orthodoxy, but doctrinally they are quite different). And Mormonism is distinct enough, I think, to warrant its own category, and is rarely treated as protestant. Other groups, like Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian Universalists, Christian Science, Pentecostalist Oneness, and so forth, clearly emerged out of protestantism and have a protestant pedigree, but no longer follow protestant dogma (all are non-nicene, notably). But Anglicanism suffers from none of these complications. It has usually been considered Protestant, it has generally considered itself Protestant, it is headed by a monarch who is also a member of a Reformed Church (the Church of Scotland). Recent ecumenical notions have drawn closer ties to eastern Orthodoxy and to the schismatic "old catholic church" types, but that is a very recent development. I'm going to move it. john k 23:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The catechism of the Church of England reads "The Church of England is the ancient Church of this land, catholic and refrmed. It proclaims and holds fast the doctrine and ministry of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". No official church document calls the church 'Protestant', but the terms 'Catholic and Reformed' are quite common. — Gareth Hughes 00:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No Church officially calls itself Protestant (or, at least, historically very few have). Lutheran Churches call themselves "Evangelical," and Calvinist churches call themselves "Reformed." "Reformed" is a synonym for "Protestant," at any rate, or at least, the term "Protestant" is inclusive of the term "Reformed." "Protestant" has always been an unofficial, loose term. If it means anything it means "churches that developed out of the Reformation." Said churches clearly include the CoE and its descendant churches. Additionally, as noted before, many protestant churches call themselves "Catholic", as the word appears in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. This does not mean "Roman Catholic," but "universal," and in such a context is not exclusive of "Protestant," as clearly the self-description as "Reformed" indicates. We include "Reformed" as a sub-group of "Protestant" in this list. The Church of England, all of whose governors since James I have also been members of the Reformed Church of Scotland, whose only Catholic governor was thrown out for that very reason, and which has also seen one governor (William III) who was also in communion with the Dutch Reformed Church, and two others (George I and II) who also took communion from German Lutheran churches, was never (after the Elizabeth settlement, at least) seen as anything other than Protestant until the Oxford Movement decided they were really Catholic, before most of their leaders realized that this was nonsense and became real Catholics. The idea that Anglicanism is not Protestant is a significant minority view, which should be discussed in the article on Anglicanism, but it need not trouble this article. john k 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The present reality is that the majority of Anglicans reject the label 'Protestant'. Historically, many more Anglicans than today would have seen themselves as Protestant, but we are dealing with present realities here. If it is considered bias to label my friends of the Assyrian Church of the East as 'Nestorian' because of a historical reality that today is rejected, so it is bias to call Anglicanism Protestant. At what level does forcing categories on people become bullying? — Gareth Hughes 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, have you looked at the article? It has a header "Nestorian" for the Assyrian Church of the East. At any rate, can you provide any support for this notion that most Anglicans actively reject the label 'Protestant?' Is the Church of Ireland really not Protestant? In the language used by ordinary people, as opposed to Anglo-Catholic theologians, churches in the Anglican communion have always been understood to be protestant, and this continues to be true today. In the US, we say that every president except John F. Kennedy was protestant. The purpose of the Glorious Revolution and of the Act of Settlement was to secure the Protestant Succession, and that latter act remains in place today for the same purpose. "Protestant" is not a term with a precise meaning. No church explicitly calls itself Protestant (or at least, most do not - evangelical or reformed, a term which you yourself admit is used by the CoE, are much more commonly used). What it means is "Churches arising out of the traditions of the Protestant Reformation," a definition which certainly includes Anglicanism. That there is a dispute is true, but that dispute is a matter of complex theological stuff, and has little to do with the kind of broad categorization which this article is meant to convey. If we changed the "Protestantism" header to "Protestant and Reformed," would that make it acceptable to include Anglicanism? john k 01:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, if Anglicanism is not Protestant because of the self-identification of (some) anglicans as not Protestant, than what of the numerous groups which we do call Protestant denominations which recognize themselves as neither Protestant nor as denominations, but merely as Christian churches. I am referring to explicitly "non-denominational" churches like the Church of Christ, and so forth. The Anglican Communion's acknowledgement of itself as "Reformed" (and, e.g. the former name of the U.S. Episcopal church including "Protestant" in it) seems to me to be at least as compelling evidence for Anglicanism's status as broadly Protestant as anything the Church of Christ does. Both the Church of Christ and the Anglican Communion arose out of the traditions of the Reformation, but both reject the label of "Protestant." And yet we label the former as protestant, but not the latter. This despite the very wide understanding of churches in the Anglican communion as being Protestant - the Church of Ireland is described as the largest protestant church in Ireland, for instance; the american stereotype of a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) usually includes Episcopalianism as the religion of the WAS Protestant, and so forth. Gareth, I await a response. john k 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is truly a list of denominations'ordered by historical and doctrinal relationships' the Anglicanism is clearly a subdivision of Protestantism. I've changed the order of things accordingly. However, if people don't like 'Protestant' as a label, what about calling this section 'Churches of the Reformation? Slackbuie 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Doctrinally, the Church of England maintains (according to its own theory) apostolic succession and the tenents of the Catholic church. The historical contention of the Church of England as a Protestant church is more contentious, and depends on whom you ask. However, it is not "clearly" a subdivision of Protestantism. Homagetocatalonia 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Doctrinally, the Church of Scotland calls itself 'Catholic' (as others have noted about other Protestant churches), but it would be hard to describe it as anything but a Protestant Church. By Protestant, I mean churches which, in their current form, which have their roots in the Reformation, such as the Church of Scotland, the Church of England and the Lutheran churches. Clearly such churches can also claim to be 'catholic' in doctrine (eg by holding to the doctrine of the Trinity) and even in their history before the Reformation. The Act of Settlement of 1701, which was to make 'provision of the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line' requires that the monarch 'shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established' [4]. The authors of that Act seem to have believed that membership of the Church of England made a person Protestant (NB by quoting this Act I don't mean to suggest that I agree with it!). Any UK church which does not accept the authority of the Pope would normally be described as 'Protestant'. I don't think a list like this should try make distinctions along doctrinal lines- it's much more useful to do make the historical links. Slackbuie 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But this page is primarily designed to highlight doctrinal differences, not historical or political ones. Otherwise this list is just a chronology of schisms, rather than a list highlighting the doctrinal diversity within Christianity. As well, I was under the impression that the religious classification of Protestant as a separate term was used for the German non-conformists and their doctrinal descendants. However, this seems as if this question is cutting right to the purpose of this article - whether it is designed to display historical or doctrinal differences in the various churches. Do you think we should have a vote on the issue? Oh, and does the Church of Scotland maintain apostolic succession? Homagetocatalonia 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not, actually.

Most Anglican Chuches do not consider themselves Protestant. The Thirty-Nine Articles are not doctrine in most Churches and The Roman Catholic Church considers the Anglican Churches to have a "special bond" with Rome. The frequently used phrase is "Catholic but not Roman Catholic, Reformed but Not Protestant." This article should at least note that there is uncertainty about Anglicans being Protestant. 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of Protestants don't like the term 'Protestant' either, but it is a useful historical designations (see above) Anyhow see the note under List of Christian Denominations#Churches claiming to be Catholic having broken communion with Rome. It would make no sense to list Anglicans in this section, it just wouldn't be useful to readers Slackbuie 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has moved Anglicanism out of 'Churches of the Reformation' (if the Church of England isn't a Cjurch of the Reformation I don't know what is!). I think we need to have a vote or something on this- can someone advise? Slackbuie 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's like saying Eastern Orthodoxes have a special bond with Rome, and thus are Catholic, which they aren't. ANd Roman Catholic is a slightly derogatory term. Among other things, it implies the Catholic church is not universal but just a Roman church, and if someone uses the term, you could be pretty sure they're protestant. And Anglicanism is not really Catholic, since it's pretty much an English church, with cery small numbers of people in the US, Canada, and Europe.

SSPX

The Society of St. Pius X IS in communion with the Catholic Church. It is just a society in the catholic church. They have never been oficially excommunicated. I am removing them from the list. -Robert Emmett McAuliffe III

Yes they were. The archbishop of some archdioscese in the US was given permission by Rome to excommunicate all Society of St Pius X members, along with people of other groups like Free Masons and some liberal group.

Placement of the Society of Friends/Quakers and Anabaptists

The page currently says "Note: Although, historically speaking, the Society of Friends can be listed as a Protestant demonination, this is sometimes contested and many Quakers today consider their faith to be a distinct, non-Protestant form of Christianity."

The same can be said of the entire Anabaptist family in general, adherents often using the term "Third Way" to identify a practice separate from both Catholicism and Protestantism (e.g. http://www.thirdway.com/, a site run by Mennonites, one of the largest Anabaptist subgroups). The Society of Friends is usually considered to be a part of the Anabaptist family. Both the note and the placement of these groups should be adjusted to reflect this.

64.233.251.2 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) John Darrow

Perhaps we should just remove the "Protestant" listing entirely. We could separate out the various groups currently under protestantism, and then note in the text that often times all Christian groups other than Catholicism and the various eastern Churches are often grouped together as "Protestant." john k 01:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Bible Students

Why're JW's and Bible Students so far apart? Bible students don't mainly spring from a Millarite source anymore than JW's do and they're both non-trinitarian.