This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Discussion?
This article has undergone a lot of revisions including some significant deletions of others work and yet there is no discussion here. May I propose some discussion on this page?
--Mcorazao 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Roman Catholic references
There's some severely POV dPaiscussion of the Roman Catholic Church here. I'm going to attempt to clean up a bit.
--Mcorazao 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Differing Views Held?
125.237.2.158 added an almost entirely redundant section entitled "Differing Views Held". Is there a point to having this section? Can it just be removed.
--Mcorazao 05:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
QUESTION---
There is an affiliation of the Christian Church, entitled "Christian Church." They call it the parenthesis church. You normally see it like Central Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
Questionable edits?
71.245.167.64 made some edits on April 8, 2007. I don't wish to be unfair but it is not clear to me the rationale behind most of these edits. Specifically
Changing CE -> AD: Why? Both are considered "acceptable" but the trend today is to go with CE to be non-offensive.
-> Some find CE to be offensive. This is an article about the Christian Church, so AD seems more appropriate. -71.245.167.64 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-> Well, for the sake of compromise I'll yield on this one much as I disagree. It's clear that there is no consensus in the Wikipedia community. --Mcorazao 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed
in 1054 CE the Pope and the other Patriarchs excommunicated each other
to
in AD 1054 the Pope and the other Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other
Although literally correct this changes the meaning of the whole paragraph which no longer makes sense. I appreciate the effort to be more correct but, in context, the statement now is actually less correct (i.e. if only the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated then why did the whole East separate from the West?).
-> The patriarch of Constantinople holds a form of primacy over the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 71.245.167.64 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-> Not in the way you're implying. The Patriarch of Constaninople is not the "boss" of the others and they are not obligated to follow his lead. In any event, I rephrased this in a way -- I think -- that captures what you and I were trying to say. Let me know if that's ok. --Mcorazao 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-> Whether or not the Constantinople patriarch's primacy over other Eastern Orthodox churches was one of obligation is irrelevant - the fact is that they did follow his lead. 71.245.167.64 04:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-> True. Is this way that I rephrased ok? --Mcorazao 14:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed
Eastern Orthodox Church in size and power as most of the original Christian lands converted to Islam
to
Orthodox Church in size and power as most of the eastern Christian lands were converted to Islam
First, the statement refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church, not Christian Orthodoxy in general. The Oriental Orthodox Church had already separated long before the Schism and was not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy. Trying to lump Oriental Orthodoxy with the Eastern Orthodox Church of this era is an insult to those Churches. Second, the statement "original Christian lands" was intentional. Christianity started in the East, not the West. The Western lands were newcommers to Christianity. One point of how this whole section was written was to point out how the center of Christianity gradually moved westward as time progressed (a fact that many modern denominations tend to obfuscate intentionally). Also, note that a large portion of the Eastern lands were not overrun. Russia is most definitely part of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Muslims hardly touched them. Though Russia is Eastern, these were not part of the "original" Christian lands that were referred to.
-> First-Should be "Orthodox Churches", referring to churches that call themselves "Orthodox." Second-Peter and Paul, who evangelised the West, were not newcomers to Christianity, and Rome is in an original Christian land that was not converted to Islam. It did not say "all eastern Christian lands".71.245.167.64 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-> I think you are missing the point of the statement. The Oriental Orthodox Church separated from the Roman Church (not Roman Catholic but "Roman") long before the Schism and was always a relatively minor player in the history of the Church. The Eastern Churches (what became the Eastern Orthodox Church) had long been the most powerful part of the Church with the Western Church for a long time holding on to a tenuous existence (one might have thought it was on its way to extinction at some points). It was a major (if gradual) shift in power when the Western Church actually became more powerful than the Eastern Church. That was the point that I was making. Lumping in the Oriental Church in this context is non-sensical. It would be like lumping in the Protestants with them just because "Protestant" and "Orthodox" both have a few letters in common in their names.
-> Regarding evangelism in the West ... Was their evangelism in the West early in the Church history? Yes. Did this amount to a significant following in the West initially? Not really. During the first century after the crucifixion Anatolia (and some immediately surrounding areas) was primarily where the Christian community was. Even as Christianity spread around the Med Anatolia was still the heartland of the religion for quite some time. The loss of the Holy Land and Anatolia to Islam really did change things in the Christian world and that should not be glossed over. --Mcorazao 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
->It would not be correct to state or imply that the early western Christian Church was "a minor player" compared to the eastern church, especially when referring to the time between 1054 and the fall of Constantinople. Furthermore, from the beginning, eastern and western churches alike acknowledged the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome.
-> Well, your map glosses over a bit of history. If you looked at Christianity around 100 CE it would be almost entirely in and around Anatolia. If you read about the theologians of the early Church they are mostly in the East. None of this means that the Westerners were non-existent or didn't matter. Rome did become an important player. But in a way it was the "Fall of Rome" that really rallied the West around the Church.
-> As far as the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome, I think you are misunderstanding your history. The patriarchs were assigned an order of importance with Rome at the top of the list. However, all the patriarchs except Rome saw this ordering as "honorary." This in fact was a factor in the Schism. The Popes had always resented that the other patriarchs would not acknowledge their authority. It was never the case that that the patriarchs acknowledged Rome's authority. It should also be noted that Rome's being given the first position was a matter of Rome's importance to the Empire, not Rome's importance to Christianity (indeed the ordering of all the Patriarchs was based on their dioceses' importance in the Empire). --Mcorazao 05:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
->The existing text incorrectly states that Rome only became important within Christianity AFTER and because of the fall of the eastern empire. The fall occured in 1453, not in the first century, so I wasn't trying to debate the relative importance in the first century. I linked the map to show that all of western Europe was evangelised several centuries earlier than you had said. At the time of the councils that defined the order of precedence of the patriarchates, Constantinople, not Rome, was the capital of the empire, so Rome was NOT given first position due to having greater imperial importance. Regarding primacy, you misunderstood what I meant. I am familiar with the issues regarding authority. While it is not true that the other patriarchs never recognized the authority of the Roman patriarch it is true that they always acknowleged his "primacy," even while rejecting his authority. 71.245.167.64 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-> Hmmmm, well, I honestly don't think the text says that but I'd glad to consider a rephrase to be more clear. And my apologies for misunderstanding your intent.
-> My intent was not to say that Rome was not important before the Fall of Constantinople but to indicate that between the turn of the millenium and the mid millenium there was a very important shift that occurred. Whereas before that time the combined power of the Eastern Patriarchs had always exceeded that of the Roman Patriarch alone and the Eastern Chruches were always seen as the "older" Churches (largely owing to Antioch and Jerusalem), with the gradual fall of the East in the second millenium and the reorganization of the West Rome was able to dominate in a way that it never had before (and to a degree rewrite history to its own favor).
-> As far as the "primacy" issue, my point has been to say that "honorary titles" aside, this never had very much real historical significance (i.e. enough to make a big deal out of in such an abbreviated history). The primary significance of this was that it was used as an excuse to justify some of the events in the Schism and the Roman Catholic Church's assertion that it is the only true Church. These issues are touched on in the section that follows the history but I figured touching on these in the history itself would simply be too detailed (i.e. if you touch on this subtlety then there are hundreds of other other subtleties that should also be included). --Mcorazao 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, for the moment I am going to revert most of the changes except try to preserve some of the clarity you were trying to add. If you disagree with this, please discuss here.
--Mcorazao 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"Serious opinions"
User 87.197.187.216 added some unattributed "quotations" without explanation. I don't recognize the quotations and they seem to be just anti-organized-religion (or anti-Christian) rants. Even if they are real quotations from significant sources, without proper attribution to explain why they matter, they are inappropriate (it would be equally inappropriate to put in a quote that says "The Christian Church is the best thing invented" without explaining who said this and why that is significant).
For now I've treated this as vandalism. If this was intended as something other than that please rewrite.
--Mcorazao 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Merger with "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"
I'm sure somebody will throw a fit at this suggestion but ...
Is there a good reason not to merge these articles? The subject matter (current content specifics aside) seems to be essentially the same. In general "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" is kind of a strange title for an encyclopedia article. That article, as it stands, is as much a dictionary entry as an encyclopedia article (making it marginally inappropriate to begin with). Note that there is some good content in the OHCAC article which would be good to bring into this article; I'm not suggesting losing that content.
It seems a bizarre suggestion to me. OHCAC deals mainly with a specific concept; CC is, or should be, an overview of a much wider kind, with a survey of the whole history of Christianity and other things. Running the two together gives an undue emphasis on the OHCAC side. CC could do with broadening in many directions, but should remain a general survey article, it seems to me. I would wait for more comments before proceeding further
I've been hoping for comments and disappointed that I hadn't gotten more.
I do recognize that OHCAC is kind of a subtopic of this one.
I do not believe, however, that OHCAC is just a tiny sub-topic of this one. If you read the intros of the two, ignoring specific wording, they are really talking about very similar things.
Honestly I would be hesitant to broaden this in too many other directions. Although I don't want to speak for the original author my impression was, and what I think is best is, that this article was going to be limited to the discussion of the institution to the extent that it can be seen, or has been seen, as a common institution (which is what OHCAC is intended to convey). Other aspects of Christianity are best left to other articles (i.e. keep each article discussing a coherent topic).
I did not intend, nor did I think others intended, that this would be a "survey" article. The phrase "whole history of Christianity" concerns me. If this article is intended to cover all of Christianity then how is it different from the "Christianity" article?
One concern, in general, that I have is that Wikipedia tends to collect lots of articles with lots of overlap. Christianity in particular has tended to have articles created for nearly every phrase that has ever been uttered in Christendom. IMHO, a lot of these do not merit articles in their own right but rather can be sufficiently covered as sub-topics of other articles.
I do think that this article still needs cleanup. In particular there is still some significant redundancy because of the material that has been added in.
So other than Johnbod's comments I have not gotten any other feedback. Johnbod, I hope my responses answered your concerns (and for what it's worth, some of the text from OHCAC has been moved to more appropriate places, notably the Protestantism article). I have gone forward with the redirection of OHCAC. Obviously please comment now if you have been holding your tongue.
No, I'm afraid I still think it a bad idea, but you have done it anyway. Johnbod 01:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, well, can you elaborate? You -- I think -- brought up two separate things.
Christian Church should be broadened to a general survey of Christianity.
OHCAC is a different concept from CC.
Is your concern still both of these, one of these, something else, ...? Can you give more detail on each (ideally responding to what I have said above)?
Obviously you can revert the redirect in OHCAC if you like.
I don't have time to compare the various versions now; it is unfortunate you & I are the only editors commenting. Did you put a notice (now referencing the historical difs to the old versions) at the Wikiproject/s? That might attract more comment. Johnbod 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I had not actually. For what it's worth, I had commented on the Christianity template discussion and got no feedback. I'll post something on the project page.
Thanks for the comment on the Wp Christianity Talk Page. Looks like I'm the first one here... I would tend to agree with Mcorazao's reasoning for the merger, but I can see Johnbod's point as well. I think on this one, I'd Support the merger, as the article looks good, and at least minimumly covers the OHCAC topic. I also agree with Mcorazao's sentiment that "Christianity in particular has tended to have articles created for nearly every phrase that has ever been uttered in Christendom". This new merged article helps reduce that trend. Nswinton\talk 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Also in response to the comment left there. Support merger. On one hand, I acknowledge that there are differences between the phrases. But these differences do not necessarily require entirely different articles, as per Nswinton above. John Carter 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have also copied your notice, pp me, to the other projects listed at the top. I found the old article (OHCAC) a useful and specific one to link to from time to time, but I can't imagine when I would link to the current version. Johnbod 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Johnbod, can you elaborate more? Is the concern that you do not like how this article is written or that the current article discusses something dramatically different from OHCAC? I agree that the current article is written in a substantially different way and certainly we can discuss reorganizing it. But your concern seems to be more that this article is discussing a completely different subject and I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to draw. Again, the term "Christian Church" can be used to mean a number of different things but the intention here was to narrow the definition to discuss a topic only slightly broader than what OHCAC conveys (i.e. not so much broader that a separate article is justified). The only significant thing I can see that the OHCAC article was that this one is not is a discussion totally focused on a particular phrase and how that specific phrase originated. As has been discussed, such articles are inappropriate. If there are specific situations where you want to link to something explicitly discussing the phrase and not the concept I would say that linking to Wikisource or some external site is the appropriate way to deal with that.
An additional thought. Is what you liked about the OHCAC article is that it gives a lot of focus to the "four marks" of the Church? Perhaps your concern is that you would like an article that is specific to that? That might be appropriate (debatable but I wouldn't oppose). But the OHCAC article covered more than that. Regardless, if the article was intended to be about the four marks then it was mistitled.
No it was not that. Unfortunately, having been moved the previous OHCAC text is unavailable as far as I can see, & I can't compare the two original versions from a dim memory. But:
1) The current title is highly general - any number of different books could be & have been written on the "Christian Church" covering totally different ground. Over time this article may evolve in any number of directions. What we had before was a focused article on a very specific concept; who knows what we will end up with.
In general I agree that the term "Christian Church" can be used in a lot of senses and I'm certainly happy to discuss what the right title should be. In general I would argue.
When the term "Christian Church" is used in an unqualified way most people think of this as referring to the whole Christian body in an institutional sense. This, of course, is exactly what this article is intended to be about.
I agree that OHCAC as a phrase tends to have more specificity. But it is also an uncommon term. It is mostly used in ecclesiastical circles and church services. As a general principle the primary name of an article should be the most commonly used term to refer to the topic unless there is a good reason to use something else. For example, for articles on animal species it is generally best to use the colloquial name for the animal even if that name may be more ambiguous than the scientific name. This is simply because the common name is more recognizable to the common person.
2) The potted History of the Church is far too long and probably too high up in the article.
I'll look at trying to simplify the history a little. I was trying to keep it brief while not leaving out details that would make it POV (i.e. mentioning one side of the history and leaving out some other side which is equally legitimate). Maybe I've overcompensated.
Regarding the position, most articles tend to have the history of a topic as one of the first things in the article. Personally I think that is a good organizational style.
3) You should look at "what links here" via the old OHCAC article, and adjust the links to the relevant section (actually you don't even have a specific OHCAC section now!). This may also give you some insight into why I find the current article less useful.
I'll try to take a look at what articles link here (I've already seen a lot of what links here).
Regarding an OHCAC section I'm not sure why there needs to be an entire section devoted to it. OHCAC is really just one way of looking at and defining the "Christian Church" (i.e. it is essentially a synonym for the title). OHCAC is described in the terminology section describing the specific connotation of the phrase (which in and of itself is interpreted differently among Christians, obviously).
4) You say, re articles on specific phrases "As has been discussed, such articles are inappropriate". Not exactly! One other editor has expressed a view that there are too many such articles. There may be some superfluous articles, but OHCAC was not one of them in my view. I also think there are, especially in this area, too many overlapping "big topic" articles which are much too short and imprecise. Now there is one more.
? I'm not sure I understand your logic or perhaps you misunderstood what I said. Both the "Christian Church" article and the "OHCAC" article existed before I ever touched them. They both ostensibly discussed the same general topic (from what their intros said). The Christian Church article was largely a stub. The OHCAC article was a discussion of the definition of the phrase OHCAC, the four marks, and various barely relevant theological topics. My point was that the OHCAC article seemed to be trying to justify itself to a large extent by focusing on defining the phrase. In general articles should be about actual "things" not words and phrases. The "thing" here is the Church which both articles were discussing.
5) I really think you should prune the history section drastically, reinstate OHCAC as a seperate main article, trim some other sections, and leave this as a survey article to which many other topics could be added, linking to their main articles.
I'll look at pruning/trimming.
I still see no justification in having OHCAC as it's own article. You have made no showing as to what distinct topic this separate article should discuss.
As I've said, I do not want to turn this into a survey article. Christianity is the survey article. This article is intended to discuss a specific topic.
Unfortunately, in the absence of the old versions, it will be ard for others to comment. It would be useful if a diff for the old OHCAC could be produced.
Johnbod, since we don't seem to be making much progress on resolving this between us, is it best maybe just to do a quick straw poll on the Project page and let that settle things?
I'd suggest something like this
There has been some recent disagreement regarding the articles "Christian Church" and "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". We would like to conduct an informal straw poll to gauge opinion on two proposals.
Proposal 1:
Christianity - A survey of the Christian religion in general including discussions of the universal institution of the Church, specific denominations, and the theology and history in general.
Christian Church - A specific discussion of the Church as a universal institution consisting of all Christians (or all "true" Christians depending on ones perspective). This covers the theological and political concept of the institution (including directly related concepts) and a brief history of the institution (as opposed to the wider history of the religion and Christendom).
If need be, a separate article discussing the "four marks of the Christian Church", covered in more detail in the original One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church article than the Christian Church article, can be created. This would be a relatively short article focused only on the collective concept of the four marks (the details of each separately are well covered in other articles).
Fantastic work thus far, Mcorazao! Thanks for submitting this for peer review. I've assessed this article (see above in the banner), and read through it. You've done a remarkable job at laying down the foundation for a great article. There are now two critical things lacking that I can see (neither of which require a terrible amount of work).
Sources: You cite only 8 sources. See
WP:V
for guidelines on unverified statements. Basically all you need to do here is state where you got the information for all of your statements. If it would be helpful, I could go through the article and put tags by the statements that need referencing.
Images: This article has 3 good images, but most of the text is completely unaccompanied. Good work with captions on the already existing images. "Related Concepts" and "Divisions and Controversies" could both use at least one appropriate image to break up the text a bit.
Thanks. Yes, citation is something the article lacks. If you have time to mark the statements that you feel are particularly in need citation please do. Also I'll look for images. Some of that is fairly dry philosophical discussions so it wasn't immediately obvious what sort of images would be appropriate. I'll try to find something.
Any more comments on
Scope - Is the scope of the article appropriate (i.e. appropriate for the title and appropriate in not unreasonably overlapping with other articles or not complementing other articles well)?
Neutrality - I've tried really hard to make this very neutral given that it attempts to cover a broad set of beliefs (there are a few bits taken from other articles that I want to neutralize more). Is there anything that sticks out as POV?
Sorry, I've been busy these last several days. About my previous comment, it looks like you've cleaned up the sourcing quite a bit with the merger. Nice work. Nswinton\talk 03:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeking copyediting feedback: "arguably"
Minor issue but ...
I have the following sentence at the end of the history section.
These developments in turn have led to Christianity's being the largest religion in the world today although the Christian Church lacks the unity it arguably once did.
The word "arguably" is generally considered a "weasel word" but I was trying to decide whether this usage qualifies or not. Obviously the last clause is not required although, given the topic, I believe this is a nice way to wrap up the section. In theory the word arguably could be removed but the sentence could be misconstrued to imply that the Christians were once perfectly unified which is, at best, POV (most historians would argue that it is false). So the word "arguably" is there simply there to soften this so it is not so much as an assertion as a commentary to sum up the points already demonstrated in the section.
Comment on the wording? Any better wording suggested?
For starters, 'did' is wrong here; it implicitly points to 'unity' and 'did unity' makes no sense. 'Arguably' is unnecessary. If you want the last clause at all, just say "...the Christian Church lacks the unity it once had." I'd leave the clause out entirely; it takes away from the conclusion rather than adding to it. (IMO) -- BPMullins | Talk 03:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I see the point on "did".
As far as the whole clause, the thing is that the whole article is about the Church as a "united" institution (to whatever degree that has been true). It seems that I should wrap this up in some way commenting about the unity of the Church (i.e. as distinct from the religion in general). So the final comment alone about the spread of the religion without this clause (or something similar) feels like I am ending on the wrong subject. As far as just removing the "arguably" (and fixing "did"), that feels like it is too strongly implying something POV (that the Church used to be perfectly united).
I guess if nobody has a better thought I'll remove it for now until I come up with a better way to write this.
"These developments in turn have led to Christianity's being the largest religion in the world today. However, the Christian Church is less unified now than it was in the past." Try that. 72.241.105.214 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Review
I was asked to give a review of this article. What follows below are my thoughts on the article in its current revision. I will watchlist this page if further discussion is desired.
I am not sure about merging One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with this article. My reasoning would be that OHCAC is a very specific term, with a history of use and interpretation attached specifically to it. It is analogous (though not an exact parallel) to merging Nicene Creed with Creed - both the general and the specific articles are needed.
The POV seems to me to be slanted, ever so slightly, toward non-Protestant perspectives.
Some of the sources are troubling, and seem to me to fall short of the standard of
original research
.
The "History" section is so condensed as to not really provide any meaningful content. I think that it is a tangent to this article, and ought to be cut.
The prose is not that great, it reads like a jigsaw puzzle with one section not necessarily matching or flowing into another.
I know that the above comments may come across as overly critical. I read the article with an eye toward how it can be improved, which leads to a critical review. Pastordavid 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Per talk page etiquette/guidelines, I would ask you to please not edit my comments, including breaking them up as you have above (I find it makes my comments harder to read and follow, as well as making it unclear who said what, and would prefer to not have my comments so edited). I would ask that you please restore my comment, and see if there is another way to reply -- perhaps it would be best to start another section where we can discuss each point in detail. Thank you. Pastordavid 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
PastorDavid Review response
The review chimes well with my own feelings about the article. Johnbod 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have moved my responses to a separate section:
1. I am not sure about merging One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with this article. My reasoning would be that OHCAC is a very specific term, with a history of use and interpretation attached specifically to it. It is analogous (though not an exact parallel) to merging Nicene Creed with Creed - both the general and the specific articles are needed.
Can you elaborate more? Nicene Creed and Creed are clearly different since Creed refers to many creeds in general whereas Nicene Creed refers to one specific one. I agree that OHCAC is somewhat more specific than the topic of this article but not so much so that a separate article is warranted, IMHO. Granted, the phrase "Christian Church" can be used in a variety of other ways than the topic of this article but that is beside the point (i.e. if you want to argue that this article is mistitled, that is a separate discussion). --Mcorazao 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Since its inclusion in the Nicene Creed, the phrase OHCAC has held a special place in the discourse of Christian ecclesiology (along with other phrases brought to special attention through the creeds: e.g.,
Homoousia). It has been the pivotal reference place for explaining what the church is and what she should be. OHCAC speaks directly to the theological and philospohical understanding of the church, whereas you seem to be shooting for the institutional and practical understanding in this article. Pastordavid
17:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of that, per se. But let's be careful about what we're talking about. There are two different kinds of discussions that can be had here, a discussion of a "concept" and a discussion of the definition or interpretation of "words" and "phrases". The latter is considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. So the key here is to discuss what "concepts" are being differentiated. Clearly one concept that is being discussed here is the universal Church (if one accepts the premise that this a legitimate concept). There are various sub-concepts of what the that Church is and certainly it is not necessarily inappropriate to have some separate articles on some of those sub-concepts (e.g. the
Roman Catholic Church article could be said to be one such sub-concept from their perspective). However, I have not heard a distinction made as to what sub-concept would be appropriate to discuss in an article entitled OHCAC. Frankly, I think if I asked almost any Church leader today what the true Christian Church is they would probably tell me "It's the OHCAC" and proceed to give me their own interpretation of that phrase. --Mcorazao
17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I realize that the phrase OHCAC is near and dear to our hearts as Christians but that, by itself, does not seem to justify a separate article. --Mcorazao 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
To some degree I agree that there is overlap that is not necessary. But I suspect my thoughts on the solution are different from yours. I have already proposed that church and Ecclesia (church) should be merged since they really are discussing the same thing only differentiated by terminology (not legitimate in Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not a dictionary). The current content of those articles is largely redundant with this one. I would argue that those two should be redirected to this one (I believe "Christian Church" is a more proper name for the topic than the other two choices). The one caveat is that, to some degree these articles talk about a "church congregation" so that content should be merged into Congregation (worship). Regarding ecclesiology, that is a separate topic. That is the "study" of the Christian Church, not the Church itself.
Your thoughts? --Mcorazao 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be drawing a distinction between the theology of what the church is and should be (i.e., ecclesiology) and the practical and imperical nature of what the church is (this article). That is a good distinction ... but this article does not make it, and wanders into ecclesiology. Thus the extra overlap. And, the more you focus on the practical observable info of the church, the less logic there is behind a merge with OHCAC. Pastordavid 17:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this was not the distinction I was trying to draw. The distinction was more like the distinction between a class on business and the business community. Granted there is a harder distinction there than the between ecclesiology and the Church but the general point is the same.
In any event, your point is taken in terms of trying to not get too bogged down in ecclesiology. I'll try to think more about how best to "draw the line". --Mcorazao 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
3. The POV seems to me to be slanted, ever so slightly, toward non-Protestant perspectives.
Thanks. This is exactly the feedback I'm looking for. Please elaborate. To be honest as a Protestant I was trying not to be slanted toward Protestantism. Overcompensation? :-) --Mcorazao 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, one thing that is awkward about Protestantism is that it is not a single communion so it is difficult to represent it without getting into the details of every single sect (i.e. trying to generalize based on a few mainstream groups is unfair to the minority). It is easier to generalize about Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, for example. --Mcorazao 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Some of the sources are troubling, and seem to me to fall short of the standard of
Wikipedia:Reliable Sources
. (a) There is a favoring of non-print resources on the article, which means that for some there is no peer-review process, or they are self-published. (b) Many come from slef-published and inherently POV sites, and are used to support claims that could be read as POV.
Good comments. I'll try to look into this more. Some of the choice of on-line resources for the in-text citations was so that they could easily be checked. Any particular sources that are troubling?
Anyway, I'll see what I can do. --Mcorazao 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
5. The "History" section is so condensed as to not really provide any meaningful content. I think that it is a tangent to this article, and ought to be cut.
Can you elaborate on "meaningful content"? From a theological perspective I agree there is little that can be drawn from this but I intentionally focused on the history of the instutional entity as opposed to the religion (because that is the topic). I thought the discussion gave a general understanding of the institution spread and changed, and fragmented. Obviously the intent is to "whet the appetite" to go to the "History of Christianity" article for more details (that article needs some work but this is the idea).
How, though, is this tangential? The article is about the Church and the history of the Church seems to be a key sub-topic (in the same way that the History of Germany is a key subtopic on Germany).
6. The prose is not that great, it reads like a jigsaw puzzle with one section not necessarily matching or flowing into another.
OK. Can you suggest an organization that feeds comprehension better? I do want to work on the Related Concepts and Divisions and Controversies section a bit more. These started out as sections of other articles that got merged into this one. Some kinks in that need to be worked out (to some extent because I had merged others work I had tried to be careful about deleting their contributions without thinking carefully about it).
One thing I had thought about: The discussion goes into lists of concepts related to the topic but there is no one section that says "Here is what the institution really is." Such a section seems appropriate except that there is so little universal agreement about that that I am not sure how one would write such a section. We could say what Jesus had to say on the topic except that even there He never described an "institution" per se and any suggestion of what he "meant" would again be debatable. So any such section would almost immediately dive into disagreements and there is already a section on the disagreements. --Mcorazao 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that the above comments may come across as overly critical. I read the article with an eye toward how it can be improved, which leads to a critical review.
Understood. Much appreciated. --Mcorazao 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to respond inline if you like. --Mcorazao 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
UW-Milwaukee - not a published work, but something closer to a catalog; i.e., a description of what the school does - a reliable source for an article on the school, but not here.
Byzantinos - self-published, and circular (one of the site's main sources is wikipedia).
Rubel Shelly a self-published source, and a non-academic essay.
These are what I found in my first pass though, without giving the others too close a look. Pastordavid 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks on the sources.--Mcorazao 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Rubel Shelley" this is not a fantastic source just one I grabbed in a pinch (the section is still a stub). But on this section I think POV sources are a little more acceptable. In other words, the "Criticisms" section is intended to highlight some POV opinions on the Church. I think it would be difficult to find consensus viewpoints criticizing the Church since the subject matter is inherently POV. A better thing, obviously, would be to find consensus viewpoints on what are the most widely stated criticisms but, frankly, most academics I think tend to stay away from that. Some would argue that this section is inappropriate. What do you think? I tend to believe that highlighting some criticism of such a major world body is worthwhile especially since the body does actually receive so much criticism (even internally) but it is not clear to me how to do that in an objective way. In other words, the goal is not to state which criticisms are "legitimate" but simply to highlight that "These are some widely held opinions that you as the reader may want to think about." Granted by the same token one could have a section on positive things about the Church but I believe that would be considered so self-serving as to be unacceptable. --Mcorazao 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. To comment on a previous statement, it occurs to me that this entire article could be actually thought of as being slanted toward Protestantismin one sense. It is predominantly the Protestants who think of the Church as encompassing all who worship Jesus. Most other sects tend to think their own communion as being the only true Church. So the inclusive nature of the article would tend to be more "Protestant" in that sense. Just an observation. --Mcorazao 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Johnbod, clarication on the "Criticisms" citation
Johnbod, in the Criticisms section you removed the fact tag with the comment
cite tag removed, - refer to the 3 linked articles
Normal practice - the sentence included links to three well-referenced articles, so no citation is needed here, any more than for:
"The Christian Church originated in Roman Judea in the first century AD[citation needed], founded on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth believed to be the Messiah, or deliverer king, of the Jewish people.[citation needed] As Jesus himself established no formal institution during his lifetime the precise start of the Church is a point of academic debate, but it is usually thought of as originating with Jesus' Apostles.[citation needed]" from ther history section. 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. This section is about criticism of the Church, not history. Whether these accounts are factually accurate is only one issue. The more important issue is establishing that these are actually criticisms that others have raised (i.e. otherwise your including these statements constitutes original research). Because the subject of this section of this section is so controversial I think it is important to establish sources of the criticism, not simply the facts.
I appreciate the help, BTW.
--Mcorazao 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Your own contributions on this passage, or the rest of the section, hardly live up to this high ideal! I think a reference to Edward Gibbon will cover the whole topic nicely, and will add it if you feel it necessary. Actually the articles cover this more than adequately. Johnbod 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say mine did in this section (I added a fact citation on my work). Regardless I hardly see the point of the persona
اسمي كريم احمل في جنسيتي مسلم وقبل ثمانية اشهر اعتنقت الديانه مسيحيه حيث اعاني نوع من التطرف من قبل المتطرفين ارجو مكم مساعدتي ماذا افعل وسوف اشرح لكم قصتي بالكامل وشكرآ ويحفظكم الرب يسوع
Fact of Fiction?
I propose to replace the first paragraph of the article with the following paragraph.
actual version:
The Christian Church is the universal institution embodying the Christian faith, the religion based on the worship of Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God. The concept as it was known beginning in 30-33 A.D.,expresses the idea that the followers of the religion can all be seen as part of one single group. Although today there is no single political entity recognized by the secular world as the unique Christian Church,[1]; each of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches claims to be the unique church established by Jesus the Messiah. Protestants would hold that the concept is justified by the notion that the Church is ultimately headed by Jesus Christ who acts as the unifying figure for all who claim to follow Him. The phrase "The Church" in its widest sense (as "the Body of Christ") has a similar breadth.
proposed version:
The Christian Church is a religiously ambiguous and cultural-sociological term to refer to all
claim to be the unique church established by Jesus the Messiah. Protestants on the other hand would hold that the concept is justified by the notion that the Church is ultimately headed by Jesus Christ who acts as the unifying figure for all who claim to follow Him. The term means something quite different for each religious institution that sees itself as belonging to the Christian traditions. The phrase The Church in its widest sense, as the Body of Christ has a similar breadth.
ratio legis:
There exists no such single institution nor single faith. It has some cultural-sociological value, but nothing more. Each "christian" religeous institution had its own definitions and teachings concerning it's structure and it's believes. This is quite fuzzy formulated in the actual version of the paragraph, and should be made more clearly, as it is difficult for non-christians to understand the finer differences. Stijn Calle 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Because there was no opposition to my proposal, I will introduce my change to the article. Stijn Calle 00:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
title / disambiguation
it is uncommon that this article should begin by disambiguating the term even though it only deals with one of the meanings disambiguated. I propose the following:
this article should be concerned with the Church in the theological sense (sum of all Christians, Bride of Christ etc.) Ecclesia (church) having the same scope belongs merged here.
I like this plan. First step, let's merge Ecclesia (church) into this article. Looks like it'll fit nicely in the Origins section. Thoughts? --JaGatalk 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Ecclesia (church) has been merged into this article. --JaGatalk 06:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
^Christian Denominations, Religious Facts, retrieved May 29, 2007[1]
^Christian Denominations, Religious Facts, retrieved May 29, 2007 [2]
Spread of Christianity to 325 ADSpread of Christianity to 600 AD