Template talk:Protestantism

Branches

Do we really want to separate denominations and movements of Protestantism into "major" and "minor" branches? It seems irrelevant for an infobox. One could argue that the Quakers and Mennonites had outsized influence in certain areas of Western culture (anti-slavery, early U.S. history) or that the Waldensians were not even protestants at all. I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts on just combining "major" and "minor" into "Branches."

Mennonites are included in Anabaptists, a major branch recognized for its contributions and tremendous historical impact, despite its relatively small membership. Waldensians are widely recognized as pre-Protestant and with the Reformation aligned themselves to the Reformed tradition. I don't see how they're not Protestants. Major branches outlined in the infobox have a considerable membership or impact, whereas minor branches were largely localized (Hussites, Waldensians) or small minor movements when compared to the 8 major branches (Plymouth Brethren, Quakers, Holiness - perhaps the largest, but still somewhat within Methodism and restricted to the United States). I think the separation is appropriate.Ernio48 (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your point on Waldensianism, but respectfully disagree with the idea that there needs to be a separation according to size of denominational membership. Any other contributors want to add anything?Auranor (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Another way to do it besides the way listed here is to separate them by historical movements.

Possible hierarchy:

1. Pre-1517

2. Magisterial Reformation

3. Radical Reformation

4. Pietism

5. First Great Awakening

6. Second Great Awakening.

(possibly combine 4 & 5 or 1 and 3)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Region

The template would be more informative if the regional churches were grouped by the major communions, with one communion per reformation: the Lutheran Reformation, the Zwinglian/Calvinistic Reformation, the Radical Reformation, and the Anglican Reformation, though the last reformation might arguably be included as Calvinistic or even excluded as Catholic. An alternative approach (requiring more work) would replace the regional churches with the major communions/reformations, putting the emphasis on theology rather than geography and politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbickel (talk • contribs)

African initiated church

Hazhk What makes you think that African initiated churches are not worth including among the nondenominationals or house churches? Let's stick to this classification, so we can somewhere with this template?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations#Protestantism

Ernio48 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

African initiated church is not a movement, it's a term used to describe churches/denominations that are indigenous to Africa, established by Africans and not introduced by colonialism. It isn't a stand-alone movement and the churches often fit within the Protestant branches, typically Pentecostal. The Ethiopian churches are Orthodox, not Protestant. -- Hazhk (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

What about the Zion Christian Church in South Africa? Its an African initiated church in its own right.Ernio48 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be an idiosyncratic denomination with various theological roots; the articles names traditional African philosophy, Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism as influences. I personally don't regard African initiated churches as a "movement", since there doesn't appear to be any teachings or emphasises common to these churches. However, I'm happy to defer to your opinion on the matter and not object to you reinstating the link to the template. -- Hazhk (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

All Reformed eastern Churches are not part of protestantism

Reformed Eastern Churches are not part of protestants.Many of these Churches are infact Orthodox in belief and practice. Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Image

Can we keep this simple please. Pick one image, not three. This is supposed to be a navigational aid, not a gallery. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

edit: Pinging @Dragovit – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, reverting. AddMore-III (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

2020 edition

First, I don't think the people are important. The only person mentioned in the solas is Christ, and the cross is enough to represent that figure. Second, as was stated above by Finnusertop, this is supposed to be a navigational aid, not a gallery. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A cross can represent any form of Christianity, not just the Protestant religion.(The Sr Guy (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)).

Yes, it can. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And for the record, you might want to check-out WP:3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I never denied that the cross cannot represent the Protestant religion, I said that the cross does not represent only the Protestant religion. The cross is a vague symbol and can represent any form of Christianity, while the Protestant reformers clearly represent the Protestant religion. (The Sr Guy (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC))

I never stated that you made the claim that the cross cannot represent Protestantism. However you're not addressing my point: Any selection of a person or small sub-set of the reformers represents Protestantism. Luther does not represent Protestantism. Calvin, Zwingli, Arminius, Hus, Erasmus, Cranmer, Cromwell, Knox, or any one person or group of people represent Protestantism. Template:Five solae best represents Protestantism, but those concepts do not have a nice pictographic representation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

ok, but a cross is a very vague symbol that can represent any form of Christianity besides the Protestant faith(The Sr Guy (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)).

You are arguing against the current Cross symbol when you should be defending your choice of image(s). Historical portraits of Luther, Calvin and (bizarrely) Arminius do not represent a whole swathe of Protestant traditions, and nor do the Protestant Reformers represent modern Protestantism. That is why they are unsuitable illustrations, IMO. A few years back, the Christianity sidebar used an illustration of Christ as the Good Shepherd while the Protestant sidebar used a simple black cross; that is why the cross continues to be used in this sidebar, because it was used here first. I think there is no compelling argument against two sidebars using similar images. Apparently a decision was made to two different versions - one black, one gold - to avoid confusion. I think that works well. --Hazhk (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason I put Luther, Calvin and Arminius was because they were the 3 big and the most influential Protestant Reformers, and the Three founded different Protestant theologies. (The Sr Guy (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)).

(edit conflict) A fish is a vague symbol. Chi Rho is a vague symbol. There are many Christian cross variants that are vague. This form of the cross is ambiguous, but not vague.

Now that the nomenclature has been defined, I agree it's not ideal, but it's better than a select group of early reformers. It's the opposite of WP:RECENTISM and is quite Euro-centric as well. The global south now has more Protestants than Europe and its descendants. So three white dudes just doesn't cut it on so many levels. To bad that the solas can't be more clearly represented. They never would have had much traction in the age of memes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)