Talk:Christianity

Background

Is it the largest religion or the most practiced? Is this a regional statistic or a world statistic? --Robert W King 14:52, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Theology

Added multiple sections. Quite possibly biased because I'm a Christian; let me know if anything needs to be changed. Jonathan Beshears 04:20, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Hello Jonathon. No problem with bias there at all—I think the sections are very well written and from a neutral point-of-view. It's good to have you on the wiki. Mark Jones 10:17, 18 January 2008 (CST)

I'm curious why Michael Formica removed a reference to a biblical passage, with the comment "not comfortable with the Bible as a reference." When describing the beliefs of a religion (a problematic phrase, I admit), why is the content of the religion's central holy books off limits as evidence of what those beliefs are? Of course, a secular encyclopedia like CZ should not use the biblical passage in question as evidence for the theological claim that "God does not change," but it seems reasonable to use it as evidence for the secular sociological claim that "Christianity asserts that God does not change." Also, if the Bible is off-limits as evidence of Christianity's beliefs, what else is off-limits? The Summa Theologica? Papal "definitions"? Various denominations' catechisms? And how does this exclusion apply to non-religion CZ articles? May an article on the U.S. Democratic Party not cite the party's own platform as evidence of its election promises? May an article on the marketing of cigarettes not cite tobacco companies' own advertisements as evidence of what claims the companies made about their products? Of course, you could not cite these sources as evidence that "the Democrats increased employment," or that a particular cigarette brand actually caused "not a cough in a carload,'" but why omit them as evidence that the party or the corporation made those claims? Bruce M.Tindall 19:09, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Bruce: With all due respect and good faith held forth, kindly be mindful that proper etiquette would dictate that you address questions about a specific editors actions to that editor, rather than in a public forum.

Michael: Thank you for your assumption of good faith. I'm not sure I understand where the violation of etiquette lies. I was raising a question about an issue -- what does CZ consider appropriate sources to cite? -- that would seem to affect all authors and editors of this article (and, for that matter, of any article describing the beliefs or positions of a religion, political party, etc.), so it seemed to me that the "Discussion"/"Talk" page of that article would be an appropriate location for the discussion. And, as it has turned out, several people besides me do seem to be interested in discussing this question here. And since, as an Editor, you're laying down official CZ policy, it would seem to make sense to do it here where everybody can hear and obey, so that there doesn't have to be an endless series of private rebukes about individual violations of policy, and so that the article can go forward in what the Editor has decided is proper CZ style. So thanks for leaving the discussion here, where everyone could see it. Bruce M.Tindall 12:38, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Regards your question, from an academic standpoint, assuming we all agree that this project is an academic endeavour, it seems to me that, given the commentary nature of the material, it would be more appropriate to reference a commentary, rather than the source material itself. This is not a direct quote of James, it is an interpretation of catechism, and, by rights, the source of the interpretation should be referenced.

To whit, if I state that naming the unnamable sullies a thing that is indefinable because in defining it I have robbed it of its essence, I can quote the Tao Te Ching. If, on the other hand, I state that Taoism holds forth the idea that when you talk about a thing directly you rob it of its immutable nature, I need to reference Jane English, Thomas Cleary, or Eva Wong.

Referencing an interpretative statement with source material is just bad form. I have a half a dozen books on my shelves from Thomas Merton to Meister Eckhert that make the same statement. Quoting James, especially given that James is a canonical tract and, by definition, eschews the non-canonical codex', is, to my mind, suspect. Tort, if you wish...it's just an opinion. I think it brings up a good point. Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 19:35, 18 January 2008 (CST)

I additionally would like to add that because the Bible is an extremely loose document-of-fact, and the words or "scriptures" within are largely faith-based, it probably should not be accepted as physical "proof" of anything other than what the adherents to it believe. Within the bible lies no physically conclusive evidence that a metaphysical "God" exists other than through proposal that the written word is fact, and the only document required as proof is the document itself--that is, the bible is largely self-referencial. --Robert W King 23:15, 18 January 2008 (CST)

CZ's job is to tell readers what the Christian theology says, not to tell readers what God is like. In Christianity, Biblical citations are the standard technique used to discuss theology and should be included. So I added: Theologians quote James 1:17, "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Richard Jensen 23:45, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Richard: True...however, Christianity, like all religions, is a mythology, not a fact. And that is someone speaking as an amateur pan-theologian, not a skeptic. If we quote the mythology, then we are guilty of faith-based POV. If we quote commentary on the mythology that quotes the mythology, then we are being objective, and reporting as witness. I have no objecction to the content, I am objecting to the manner in which that content is referenced. As I stated in my edit note, quote the theologian.

This brings up an additional question. Where do you draw the line between your constructs of "mythology" and "commentary on mythology"? Some of the Christian epistles, for example, quote and then interpret passages from the Torah, Psalms, and Prophets. Is that "commentary," permissible as evidence of how (some) Christians have interpreted the Jewish scriptures, even though it appears in the Christian Bible? Is the Talmud a "commentary" on the Torah, or is it itself "mythology," since it was written by people who presumably believed in the truth of the Torah as much as the authors of the Torah did? (Or are the different "layers" of the Talmud in different categories?) How are commentaries written by theologians who are themselves Jews and Christians -- Thomas Aquinas, for example, or Martin Buber -- any less "mythological" than the scripture they're commenting on, if the theologians themselves operate from a "faith-based POV"? With modern scholarship, I may not even know whether the author of a commentary on biblical literature is a believer or not, so how do I determine whether his or her writing is tainted with a contagious "faith-based POV"? In an article about Confucianism, am I guilty of "faith-based POV" if I quote the Analects, or perhaps may I quote the Mencius (even ignoring the question of whether the social construct called "Confucianism" belongs to the social construct called "faith")? Is CZ's existing article on Hitler commiting a violation by paraphrasing Mein Kampf to illustrate Hitler's beliefs, rather than citing a commentary on it? Bruce M.Tindall 12:38, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Hitler's "Mein Kampf" isn't a mythological text. --Robert W King 12:53, 19 January 2008 (CST)

"Mythological" is a social construct with many competing definitions. Which one are you using? Historians often use the term "myth" when talking about narratives that do not necessarily have any supernatural content. It could definitely be argued -- has been argued, in fact -- that Hitler was trying to found something very like a religion, with events such as the Nuremberg Rallies as its rituals, the planned monstrous buildings in Berlin as its equivalent of holy structures, its attribution of non-scientifically-measurable qualities to so-called "racial" groups (the existence of which, in itself, could be called mythological), the replacement of the colloquial greeting "Gruess Gott" by "Heil Hitler" (notice whose position Hitler is put into by means of this replacement); in this view, "Mein Kampf" could certainly be classified as a sort of "scripture." More importantly, which definition of "mythological" does CZ require authors to use when determining what can be cited as evidence of some person's or group's beliefs or opinions? Bruce M.Tindall 13:47, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Also, regards that reference you added, kindly stick to the format. With all due respect to your credentials (Yalie!...I'm a Columbia man, myself - do they still say stuff like that?), your entry smacks of positionality, rather than scholarship, and the whole reason we are all here is get away from the Wikipedia-weirdness. Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 06:28, 19 January 2008 (CST)

I'm not sure I can agree that it is biased to directly quote the bible to support the idea that Christians believe a certain thing. It seems to me like the bias would have to be in how the actual text we're writing is phrased, not neccesarily in what we reference. Jonathan Beshears 04:17, 20 January 2008 (CST)

We're not talking about God, we're only explaining how theologians think. When we say they use a quote that does not assert the quote is true. You need to show some respect for theologians, they work hard at it. :) At CZ we are not allowed to use the term "POV" -- it's strictly forbidden. In any case we are agreed that we should quote thetheologians, which is what I did. So I added a Hodge cite. Richard Jensen 07:08, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Cool. But where's the cite? Or are we cross-editing? As for the use of POV, it was an intended breach of protocol to make a point! :-) Blessings...

I just added some theologians.Richard Jensen 07:26, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Is it okay to cite primary texts, when they are agreed by most scholars to support a position? i.e. Is it okay to reference Galatians directly to support the idea that Christians believe salvation by grace alone, or should we quote a theologian saying that? It feels too wikipedia to me to require a theologian to cite a text in order for us to cite it, if it is very commonly used by Christian scholars. Or could we put something in the text like "Christians believe, based on texts like X that Jesus is the son of God"? Jonathan Beshears 04:03, 20 January 2008 (CST)

It's probably fair to talk about salvation by faith, justified by Galatians, in the context of Protestant theology, but only in that context. To my mind, there should be at least three separate discussions (though not necessarily in separate articles)-- a discussion of Galatians vis-a-vis Protestant theology, a discussion of Galatians vis-a-vis non-Protestant theology (I am thinking primarily Orthodox and Catholic), and a discussion of the modern scholarly understanding of Paul's own thought. I think they need to be differentiated thusly, but that's just my sense. Brian P. Long 01:08, 21 January 2008 (CST)

I think Catholic and Orthodox theologians accept salvation by grace alone, although they also emphasize James much more: "show me your faith without works". Does anyone have any sources on this? I have to admit I haven't studied Catholic soteriology very much.Jonathan Beshears 16:17, 21 January 2008 (CST)

When getting in to Roman Catholic soteriology I believe it gets a little bit more complicated than that—you would probably have to account for such things such as mortal and venial sins, purgatory and perhaps more. The catechisms would give some more detail and are generally held as offical Church dogma. My experience of Roman Catholic doctrine is limited, though, mostly to childhood schooling (and limited investigation thereafter) so I can't speak authoritatively on it here. Mark Jones 17:16, 21 January 2008 (CST)

I was wondering if it's fair to have Trinitarianism in the introduction in such an unqualified way. That is definitely a subject to be taken up and discussed in the central text of the article, but having it in the introduction seems sort of unfair to me. Brian P. Long 01:08, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Change in Theology. Question: There was a vote?

Read this section and tell me it does not imply that traditional beliefs in all Christendom have changed because of the decision of one guy:

"Christian theology centers around several main beliefs. Christianity is monotheistic; that is, Christians believe in one God, who is in 3 persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). Christians believe that Jesus was both fully human, and fully divine. Christianity asserts that God is ethically perfect, or holy, and that God is immutable; that is, God does not change[2]. God was traditionally seen as infinite, as well as omnipotent, or all-powerful, but in the early 19th century Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 –1834) merged all God's characteristics into the idea of causality; his Romantic treatment shaped liberal Protestant thought. "

Is this a peon to the Liberal Protestant theology or an article about Christianity? It needs to be identified correctly either way.

And to be honest, going from all powerful and infinite to causality is not very straightforward either. --Thomas Simmons 06:44, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

the statement says Schleiermacher is the founder of liberal Protestant thought, which is correct. It is not a statement about God. Richard Jensen 07:40, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

As it's currently written, the theology section is imprecise, and could use a lot of work. The bits about Schleiermacher are not the best parts of the section, but they are not the most problematic, either. Someone really needs to go through and qualify all of the theological statements in the section, or give a detailed account of when and how these beliefs entered the Christian mainstream. Brian P. Long 08:16, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

It would be a good idea to delineate the "mainstream."--Thomas Simmons 18:48, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

2 Billion adherents

Really? That just seems... too high. Is there anyone knowledgeable on the subject that could confirm or deny this? Richard Pettitt

And the answer is Check this out.... 2.1 billion is the correct number, but it includes everything from Cathlics and Protestants to Monophysites and Quakers. The number makes sense, given that all the sects are included in it...Monophysites??? Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 14:45, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Ah yes, that does make sense. Thanks. Richard Pettitt 15:47, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Gnostic Christianity

I currently have two areas of interest both related to and outside of my chosen field of psychology and the social sciences; Ken Wilber's work on Integral Consciousness, and Gnostic Christianity. If any of you here have an interest in the Nag Hammadhi and the non-canonical gospels, I'd appreciate a hand as I begin to develop articles. Thanks! --Michael J. Formica 06:44, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Before you ask, Carl Jung, who was a theologian by training, was deeply influenced by the Gnostics, and I, in my turn, have been deeply influenced by Jung...that's how... --Michael J. Formica 06:45, 19 January 2008 (CST)

I'm not sure it belongs in the Christianity article. Probably would be more appropriate as a separate article, because they have very different theologies and christologies. Maybe it could be mentioned if we had parts about Christian history, and talked about Nicea and other early Christian debates. Jonathan Beshears 03:54, 20 January 2008 (CST)

I respectfully disagree with Jonathan. I believe an article on Christianity needs to balance the synchronic and the diachronic aspects of religious practice; that is to say, I believe it first needs to provide a fair, comprehensive and accurate picture of what adherents today believe. At the same time, though, it needs to provide a historical picture of the development of Christian doctrine. I believe that many first-millennium theological debates could plausibly have gone the other way. It does not seem fair to me to short-change Monophysites (e.g.) because, at this point in time, they happen to be in the minority.

Gnostics are a special case, granted...

In a perfect world, we would split the articles into discussions of mainline Christian doctrine, and have separate articles on Gnostic theology or whatever, without giving either pride of place in the 'Christianity' article. This seems to be unrealistic, though, and perhaps the best way to resolve this is to carefully qualify each substantive theological statement. Something to the effect, "Christians in the Western European tradition tend to believe that human beings inherit Sin with their humanity; this idea was (first?) formulated (popularized?) by the Latin-writing Augustine of Hippo, however. His writings were never popular in the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, and this belief never became a part of Orthodox doctrine."

I realize that this is awkward, and the amount of qualification tedious, but at least it's fair.

In re:Gnosticism, perhaps the fair way to do things is to mention Gnosticism (when appropriate) when discussing a particular theological position X (can't think of examples off the top of my head, sorry), when Gnostics also happen to believe X. It would be nice to provide Gnostic counter-readings to mainline Christian interpretations of scripture, but this would probably be too cumbersome. Brian P. Long 01:35, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Both of you are correct. A reference to Gnosticism belongs within the Christianity article because the shape of Christianity before the hereticologists got their hands on it was, in fact, Gnostic. That should be made clear as we role out a conversation about Irenaeus' selection and codification of the gospels, as well as Jerome's selection of our current 27 biblical codex.

In addition, the Gnostic cycle needs to be sepearate from the 'orthodox' Christian cycle because it is, as Jonathan mentions, the tenets of the theologies and christologies are much different. In addition, we have 36 gospels to discuss, not 4...and, as scholars, while we can accept discussion of the Gospel of Judas, I am not sure it'd fly within an article on 'orthodox' Christianity. :-) Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 08:57, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Let's start by putting the Gnostics in a separate article, to which this article will link. Richard Jensen 13:35, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Well, I would like to make sure that we have a description of Christian orthodoxy (as in "correct" belief, not eastern Orthodoxy) in the article. Articles can be very confusing if we try to describe the mainline and the dissenting views all together. But if we want to mention the Nestorians and Gnostics, and even Latter-Day-Saints or Jehovah's witnesses, we could. I just would prefer that they be in a separate section to avoid confusion. I also think Gnosticism may be more appropriate in a section about the history of Christianity, because I don't believe it's a widely held position today (correct me if I'm wrong). Jonathan Beshears 16:14, 21 January 2008 (CST)

missing editors

Does CZ have any active religion editors--?? I added History as a category (Christianity is covered in all the history textbooks).Richard Jensen 13:32, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Isn't Michael Formica one? He refers to himself as one in his yesterday's posting to this page. Bruce M.Tindall 13:52, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Michael is a psychology editor, not a religion or history editor. Richard Jensen 14:33, 19 January 2008 (CST)

This is a matter of definition.  :-) I am sure that you could get a response from a few different religion editors, if you put a specific question to them. --Larry Sanger 09:01, 20 January 2008 (CST)

Clarifying...I referred to myself as an amateur theologian, and an editor, yes...but I by no means meant to imply that I am qualified to be a religion editor or that I am one. Forgive me for being unclear, or causing confusion. Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 11:56, 20 January 2008 (CST)

"Orthodox" vs. liberal positions

How should we integrate the differences between "orthodox" (as in traditional beliefs, not eastern orthodox) and liberal theology. Should we just write about orthodox theology, and have a separate paragraph about how liberal theology disagrees? Right now I feel like we're stuffing other viewpoints into the theology section, and the structure feels awkward. Jonathan Beshears 04:07, 20 January 2008 (CST)

good point. what sort of outline do you think works best? I recommend breakdown by theologian [which is easier to control] rather than topic [which can sprawl into 1000 topics] Richard Jensen 04:18, 20 January 2008 (CST)

I suggest that you consult a religion editor (i.e., try to rope one in!). This is precisely the sort of thing in which a specialist's guidance would be helpful. See the list linked from Religion Workgroup. --Larry Sanger 09:00, 20 January 2008 (CST)

Strange distinction and possibly vexed, Re: Jonathan Beshears 04:07, 20 January 2008 (CST) comment -

• "How should we integrate the differences between "orthodox" (as in traditional beliefs, not eastern orthodox) and liberal theology.

How orthodox is orthodox and who decides what is orthodox or not. How traditional is traditional and who is traditional? The language here is very obscure. Are the Baptist Churches orthodox? What about the Presbyterians or the Methodists? Churches forming in the 3rd-5th centuries in Asia, Afrika, and Europe are what--not traditional? But churches and congregations forming in the 17th through the 19th in Western Europe and North America are traditional? How about a Post-modern versus Modern versus Post-reformation versus Counter-reformation versus Reformationist versus, Liberal versus Orthodox theme? We could support and thereby eschew objectivity by sticking with the pretense of calling the Presbyterians traditional or even orthodox or we could simply label them by the names they give themselves, making it far more objective and use a timeline, century by century or use an event's theme. --Thomas Simmons 16:43, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

Soteriology

This presents a problem:

"Most Christian denominations today agree that salvation is "by grace alone", meaning that a person is not required to do good works to get into heaven, although good works will generally be a by-product of salvation."

Need serious sources here. Sounds like post-reformation theology and that means the Orthodox and the Roman Churches have positions on this that seriously predate this no-works-required interpretation.--Thomas Simmons 06:50, 5 April 2008 (CDT).

Yes, as I suspected. If the article continues this way it will need to be relabeled or rewritten. Here is a comment from Father Theodore Niklasson, a deacon in the Georgian Church and a student at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox seminary in Boston:

"The statement that you made strikes me as one with a heavily Protestant orientation. All of us will be saved--whether we like it or not.

Another source:

"From the Orthodox viewpoint, salvation is more than Christ simply having paid some penalty to satisfy the Father's wounded "honor." Salvation is the will of the Father, that we return to Him so He can love us with an everlasting love. (Fr. George Grube. The Orthodox Church A to Z Pp 9-10. cited in How Does Christ Save Us? Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church of America, Diocese of the Midwest)

Fr. Grube provides the following as a guide to the Biblical concept of salvation Scriptural references:

• St. John 3,
• Rom. 5:1-5,
• 2 Corinthians 3:18,
• 2 Corinthians 4:16,
• 2 Corinthians 5:17,
• 1 Peter 2:4-10,
• Ephesians 2:8-9,
• Philippians 2:12-13,
• James 2:14-26

Another source, Father Paisius Alschul, St. Mary's of Egypt, KCMO, Serbian Orthodox Church, (New Gracanica Diocese)

It sounds "reductionistic".

How shall we deal with this sort of divergence? Subheadings might be a way to go, e.g

• Protestant perceptions of Soteriology
• Eastern Orthodox perceptions of Soteriology
• Roman Catholic perceptions of Soteriology

Be easier than writing several versions. It will get longer however until each section will have to have its own article which would be great.--Thomas Simmons 16:29, 5 April 2008 (CDT)