Talk:Christianity/Archive 8

I added an edit for a fourth category. That is the groups that claim to be Christian that are outside the mainstream. The groups that are not Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. These are groups that are not trinitarian such as the Jehovah's Witness', Mormons, and the 7th Day Church of God groups.

There was nothing in my submittal that I believe would have been considered a violation of the NPOV policy. Yet is was edited out. Essentially all it did was acknowledge that there are people who claim to be Christian and that do not believe in the trinity.

History clearly shows that there are groups that profess Christianity that do not trace their history through the usual channels that this article limits itself too.

Would someone mind explaining why my small addition was edited out? Thank you. COGwriter

These groups are dealt with later in the article. The main thrust of the article is, of course, mainstream Christianity, which is as it should be. There are three main recognized "branches" of Christianity (RC, Orthodox, & Protestant). Yes, there are unorthodox fringe groups, some of which you mention above, which do not fit neatly into any of those categories (largely because the three main branches would not even consider most of these groups as being actually Christian...they would consider these fringe groups something else altogether -- part of the mission field). Now, if these relatively small groups were ignored entirely, that would be POV. But they are in fact mentioned in the article...very briefly, which is certainly appropriate. I guess my hope is that you recognize that minority views are certainly legitimate to mention, but we must be absolutely clear in an NPOV encyclopedia that they are minority. KHM03 00:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You and I completely agree that they are a minority. But that does not mean that the existing article does not have a POV. It is a major negative one towards those groups that believe that they are persecuted by the majority--which I feel that they clearly are.

Anyway, I believe that we thus need to add another section to that article as what is out there now does have a POV. And yes, a small one. Perhaps something like the following:

=== Out of the Branch Groups ===

There are quite a few small groups that do not consider that the line of Christianity that the three major branches developed from, at all show their history. These groups, which are clearly a religous minority, normally claim to descend from the early New Testament Church, but do not believe that they in any fashion came out the church in Rome. They also tend to not abide by the famous Church Councils, such as those beginning in 325 C.E. in Nicea.

Furthermore, most of these groups are not only nontrinitarian, they are often considered to be heretical by those in the three major branches. Such groups (in order of size) would be the Jehovah's Witnesses (who believe in a form of unitarianism), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (also called Mormons, who believe in a non-standard form of trinitarianism), the 7th day Church of God groups (who generally believe in a form of binitarianism), and the Christadelphians (who believe in a form of unitarianism).

The fact that you mentioned that some do not consider them to be Christian, does not change the fact that these groups do consider themselves to be Christian and that they are considered to be part of the category of Christianity. I believe I have made it clear that they are a minority. What do you think? COGwriter

I would agree with you and would not personally oppose the new section you propose, but perhaps we ought to let a few more folks weigh in...always a wise move. KHM03 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I would disagree that the fringe groups are actually persecuted by the Christian mainstream. They may sometimes experience discrimination, but that is a far cry from actual persecution. Just my two cents. KHM03 15:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding persecution, I will simply state that Mormons were attacked by the military on several occasions in the US, JWs were rounded up by the Hitler Germans, and all of us have had our literature vandalized and experienced what we consider persecution. And I should add that the discrimination issue is something we deal with all the time.

Regarding my proposed addition, it has been a couple of days and no one else has responded so, I plan to put it in in a couple of minutes. COGwriter 15:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

A military attack is certainly persecution; vandalism of literature, not so much. Discriminatory, yes; persecution, no. Both are wrong but there is a difference. KHM03 16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with KHM in not opposing inclusion of such a section. However, these groups are already covered. Hence I moved the section up (I orginally merged the two, but some parallel post messed up my plans. Now I have put my merged text in brackets, ready to be merged again.)

In regard to the persecutions. Note, that we cannot include every act of persecution and that these should go to the proper section (e.g. JWs in Nazi Germany is not persecution by Christians, but rather persecution of Christians). Whether the military attacks on the Mormons constitute persecution I cannot say whithout looking at the context. They might be, but there is also the story of Joseph Smith arrested, which was not persecution but prosecution.

One more question: how's the relation between the "7th day Church of God groups" and the "7th day adventists"? Str1977 18:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The relationship is somewhat distant due to the many differences. The main differences are that Seventh Day Adventists are trinitarian, consider that they are Protestant, celebrate Christmas (at least in the US), and accept the teachings of Ellen White as a God-sent prophetess. The 7th day Church of God groups are normally binitarian, do not consider themselves to be Protestant, celebrate the biblical holy days (Passover, Pentecost, Trumpets, Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles), consider Christmas to be pagan, and do not consider that Ellen White was sent by God. There are many, many, doctrinal and prophetic differences. In terms of history, the SDAs claim we derived from them, while we point out that we have not changed doctrines (like Christmas, Passover, and the trinity) like they have, thus we claim that we are faithful and that the SDAs were misled by Ellen White and those who came after her.

And in most (but not all) of the doctrinal (as opposed to prophetic, which are often unique to the SDAs) differences, the SDAs are more like Protestants than those in the 7th day COGs. People in the COGs DO NOT consider that the SDAs are part of us, but we normally consider them to be Protestants who happen go to church on Saturday and who do not eat unclean meats. Because of the Saturday connection, sometimes we do work together on issues of sabbath-keeping research (for example, I have been in contact with Dr. S. Bachiochi, a SDA professor, a few times) and even anti-discrimination matters. COGwriter 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction, yes the US military was used by the US government to persecute the Latter-day Saint people, but the vast majority of their persecution has come from fellow Christians. By persecutions, I mean the raping, tar and feathering leaders and adherents, murdering of leaders, men, women, and children, expelling and burning of homes, constant and incessant attack until the early LDS people were forced to leave the United States for a land no one desired in the hopes of practicing their religion in peace. Though their history is unique in the United States, Christianity if full of persecuted peoples by their "Christian" brothers and sisters. The very fact that the LDS peole claim to be Christian due to their belief in the Jesus Christ as the Son of God, their Savior and Redeemer, and the sole way to return to God is not sufficient to be recognized as Christian by fellow Christians is a form of persecution. Tell me, how would you feel to bear your personal witness of the divinity of Christ and then have a "Christian" state you are still not Christian? Storm Rider 20:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the murders, tar & feathering, etc. is certainly persecution. But identifying a group as non-Christian because they may deny central tenets of the faith is discernment, and may become discrimination, but it isn't persecution. KHM03 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, KHM03 - the question whether Mormons are Christian or not is not directly related to persecution. You can persecute someone you consider to be of another religion or someone you consider "just a heretic" - in the same way you can tolerate either. Str1977 22:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Christainity, as Christ taught, was defined as those who believed in Christ as the Messiah and were baptized. There was no other clarification. The definition of defining Christianity as one who believes in the creeds of the orthodox chruches is a more recent phenomena. Those who did not believe in the "famous" councils were labeled as heretical, but retained their Christianity. At best, an argument may be made in defining who is a traditional or orthodox Christian. As an aside however, to deny one's Christainty not by what Christ said, but what man said, results in simple persecution. To hide behind a statement, "we are just using discernment" is both fallacious and pernicious, harming both the one who uses the argument and those argued against. You know better K; stop it! Feel right it saying you don't believe another's doctrine, but to place oneself above the statements of Christ is unimaginable. Storm Rider 21:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with how the out of branch edit was moved and believe that the article is somewhat better balanced.

However, I do believe that editing out my comments that the Mormons suffered persecution by the military in the US, that Hitler intentionally targetted JWs, and that the Sabbath-keepers had to flee for their lives after Constantine out is a POV. Constantine DID NOT just destroy pagans and their temples. What he did really should be in the article. I will add a small edit on the Constantine matter. If someone considers it inappropriate, please explain. Thank you. COGwriter 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider: I'm not advocating calling one group "more Christian" than another on Wikipedia; I'm simply saying that this is what happens. Now, I do have a particular perspective as a United Methodist pastor, but I'm not attempting to make that "law" or anything. The bottom line is that saying that one group isn't Christian because they fail to affirm what "mainstream" Christianity (which we define as the 3 main branches) affirms as essential may be unfortunate, but it isn't persecution. Persecution is something else...violent, bloody, terror-filled. As to whether or not Jesus advocated a particular definition of "Christian", that is another debate entirely and I haven't even attempted to address that (though I think my more liberal brethren are correct in believing that Jesus emphasized orthopraxis as much - if not more - than orthodoxy...hence the wonderful balance found in Methodism...but I digress... :) ). KHM03 21:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

COGwriter: I'm with you in that the US military attacks on Mormons was persecution. Yes, when they were trying to arrest Joseph Smith, it was simple police work, but the attacks didn't end there. That was persecution of Mormons. Hitler, on the other hand, targeted a lot of groups, not just JWs; they didn't receive any unique persecution under the Third Reich. One of the most famous martyrs of that period was, for instance, Lutheran pastor/theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Certainly Jews were primary targets, far moreso than JWs. I'm an identical twin; I know that the Nazis were also after twins...the point is that many groups were persecuted under that demonic regime, so I'm not sure the JW reference is necessary. As far as Constantine, I'm not sure of the history there, so I'll take your word for it. My guess is that he and the Constantinian church believed that those they were killing were pagan...whether that's correct or not. Either way, if he was hunting them down and killing them, that definitely meets the standard of being persecution, and not merely discriminatory. KHM03 21:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Apart from objecting to terms like "Constantinian church", I am not aware that there were any persecutions of "Sabbath-keepers". There was no law against observing the Sabbath. There only was a law that closed markets and offices on Sundays. Also, the council of Nicea condemned those who celebrated Easter on the 14th of the month Nisan, regardless of the day of the week, but I am not aware that they were persecuted (they certainly were excomunicated). Anyway, there was hardly a persecution of pagans in Constantine's day (in contrast to his son Constantius)

Anyway, I repeat that we cannot mention any act of persecution that ever happened (or even one for every group) in this article. This belongs into the article of the respective denomination. (And JWs perseuction in Nazi Germany should not be labeled persecution of Christians by other Christians.)

Str1977 12:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

In all due respect, it is difficult to get the truth out. But here is a quote from the November 2005 edition of the Philadelphia Trumpet, p. 2:

In another letter, specifically regarding Sabbath worship, Constantine wrote, “Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the Catholic Church …. [F]rom this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public.”

This was confirmed at the Council of Laodicea almost 40 years later in a.d. 363. At that conference, it was determined, “Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s Day. … But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema [cursed and excommunicated] from Christ.”

There you have it: historical proof of the enforced observance of Sunday. To assemble together on any other day for a religious observance was unlawful.

Anyway, I hope that helps. Those of us who are Sabbatarian point to a history of persecution and discrimination by the three branches that this article insists on. COGwriter 14:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

K, I agree with you that many Christian chruches label other chruches who believe in Christ as non-Christian. However, I attempt to make an effort to instill a better use of language on WIKI. Mormons, JW's, members of the Restoration Movement and many others proclaim their belief in Christ, but they are not part of orthodox or traditional Christianity. You draw a finer line between persecution and discrimination than I do. I wonder if you would find a different definition if you were the one persecuted/discriminated against? Just a thought. Emotional harm/persecution can be every bit as painful as being beaten and the scars last much longer. Also, the article is about Christianity, not orthodox Christianity. Because one is of a minority group does not mean they get short shifted on WIKI as you wrote above. We seek balance on WIKI. Interestingly, don't Mormons and JW's indivdiually number more than Methodists in the US? This is getting to sound contentious, please do not take it as such; I seek to on be thought provoking. Storm Rider 00:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The UMC is the third largest denomination in the USA, behind the RCs and the So. Baptists. Mormons may eventually be 3rd, but I doubt JWs, who are not growing at the rate of Mormonism. I draw the fine line between persecution & discrimination out of sincere respect for those who have experienced persecution...it isn't the same as discrimination. Both are bad...one is a whole lot worse. We need to mention the fringe/minority groups, but we should not suggest that they are representative of Christianity. They are a minority, and while they deserve mention, we need to treat them (in terms of editing an encyclopedia) as a minority. That's fair, I think. KHM03 11:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Minority groups should be mentioned in this article, including the fact that they're Christian status is disputed by the mainstream.

The question whether some denomination is heretical (by which I mean: Christian but not orthodox (not sticking to the true faith)) or non-Christian is a difficult one and undoubtedly influenced by own's one POV. Just claiming to be following Christ is, in my book, not enough (apart from WP turf) to be Christian - you actually have to following Christ not in name but also his teachings. But of course, that's just my opinion. I'm not advocating calling someone non-Christian in WP just because I personally (and for good reasons) think them not to be Christian. Str1977 12:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have further edited this passage:

1) I have removed the header. This well belongs to the introduction. You can reinsert it, if you think it better, if you create a section for the major branches and than a subsection for these "out of the branch" (is there no better term) groups. I don't think it's good that the contents should start with the fringe instead of the mainstream.

2) I split the "Yet, other traditions and groups ..." sentence, including JWs and others in the first sentence and retaining only the "judged non-Christian by others" where it stood. For my taste, the reasoning went a bit too much "but ... yet ... yet". My present edit wants to make it: 1- minority groups 2- special case Mormons 3-view of other Christians

3) I also removed the euphemism "unorthodox" and linked "heretical" to "orthodoxy". I also included "non-Christian" since this is actually not the same as heretical. E.g. I for my part think JWs are heretical but still Christian, while Mormons are not. IMHO, just an example.

4) I removed my bracketed version, since no one seemed to use any of it. The only thing that's different is a closer look on "trinity issues". If you want to, you can include it into the current paragraph.

5) I removed the C.E. (and also the AD) further down. It should be consistent and if we had to choose AD is more appropriate both because of the topic and because it was there before. But IMHO we don't need either (these were the only two instances anyway) since Christianity is prone to be AD. Str1977 12:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I wish to add back add a couple of sentences to the replacement as it is not clear enough, in my opinion, as the trinity issue is a major part of why other groups distance themselves from these groups. COGwriter 14:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted a number of the "and they are not Christian" statements. I think if it is said once, readers will get the idea. When it is repeated ad nauseaum it appears as if the writer is terrified that by simply mentioning the names JW, Mormon and others they will be spiritually contaminated or that the reder will immediately be converted. It is very odd.

Given that we are labeling these minority groups as heretical and leaving all the of the groups without any labels, it may be appropriate to begin with Catholicism and label all of their sects as heretical and having broken off from the one true chruch as Catholicism claims. Further, it would be appropriate to label all Protestants as having deserted the apostolic authority. Given that Catholicism is the majority, seems appropriate given that might makes right.

K, you seem to foreget the concept of Grace. Accepting Christ as their personal Savior is the defnition of being saved, not whether you are obedient to teachings. Isn't that what you preach on Sunday or have I misunderstood the Protestant teachings? I find most Protestants, particularly those who have read anti-Mormon literature, to be without understanding of Mormon doctrine or beliefs. You may choose to judge, but that again is a dangerous position to take; a more personally comfortable position to take is to allow God to discern who is a disciple and who is not. Storm Rider 16:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I haven't condemned anyone, nor will I do so. I personally maintain that if anyone is saved, it is because of the grace of God in Christ Jesus. That is true for Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists...whomever. I haven't yet made a claim that some are saved and some are not. I've read very little literature either pro- or anti-Mormon. If a Mormon is aved, then I'll praise God. Nevertheless, I feel the need to stick with the "classical" understanding of discipleship as interpreted through my own tradition; that's certainly fair, I think. And that means that, for me, Mormons, JWs, Binitarians, etc., are part of the mission field. I'm permitted that position, aren't I? It's not a judgment...it's Christian love. It absolutely does not mean that I favor discrimination or persecution against those with whom I disagree; it does mean that I pray that they change their minds! KHM03 19:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

K, I think you are missing the point. When you claim someone or some group is non-Christian, thus beyond Christ, you also put them beyond the Grace of God. You use the euphemisim "Mission Field", but the meaning is the same; one just sounds better and is not so offensive. However, the result is most certainly condemantion; were it not so there would be no need for the "missin field". So regardless if a LDS believes in Jesus as their personal Savior, that He died for their personal sins; he/she is outside the Grace of God according to you. Further, the simple argument...outside the "classical" understanding of discipleship. Boy, that is a mouthful. Christ said it best, by their fruits you shall know them. He did not quibble about what doctrines you believed in to be a follower.

This article is about Christianity, not Tradtional Christianity or even Classical Christianity. I respect your desire and understanding of traditional Christianity and feel that the article fully addresses that position. I also feel that traditional Christianity is in a state of apostasy, that there was a need for a restoration of the true church, and the structure of the church instituted by Christ; thus I am a LDS. Yes, the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a small minority amongst the many wonderful, Christian churches that possess much truth; but their genesis is not well covered and has been marginalized in this article.

If we are not going to label which beliefs in all the sects which are considered heretical by the mother tree, for most the Catholic chruch, then I see little need to label that LDS, JW's, etc. are heretical. It is discimination that marginalizes samller group in order that others may feel superior, but it is strictly POV for an article to be read by many who are not Christian. Storm Rider 05:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops! When I added back that paragraph, I put the JWs ahead of the LDS, I will correct. Sorry. COGwriter 20:49, 15 October 2005

Storm Rider-- I fear you are misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth inadvertently. A few points...

1. Whether someone is a Christian or not, they are never outside the grace of God (see Prevenient grace). I have made no other claim than that. If someone is a Mormon, a Hindu, an atheist, a Methodist, a Catholic...whatever...they are never outside of God's prevenient grace. I make no claim as to who is in or out of God's justifying grace...Mormon, Methodist, or otherwise. That's up to God and God alone.
2. Concerning the Mormons, binitarians, JWs, etc., I am an ordained United Methodist pastor. As such, I need to be faithful to my ordination vows and our Book of Discipline. While we are a denomination that strongly believes in (and has been a leader in) the ecumenical movement, we also believe that some "unorthodox" groups are not Christian. We lift up the Trinity, for example, as a key doctrine...an essential. You need not agree with that position, but please allow us the freedom to maintain it. Since we do, people who do not affirm the Trinity are, by definition, the "mission field"...whether they are Methodist, Mormon, atheist, Buddhist, or whatever. That is a personal view, to which I'm entitled and for which there is great Scriptural and theological justification; I do not expect it to be official Wikipedia policy. Here, the ruling doctrine is NPOV, which I fully understand; it is why I have favored certain edits which conflict with my own position.
3. The truth is, from an NPOV position, that there are three primary "branches" of Christendom...RC, Orthodox, & Protestant. These three groups comprise the vast majority of Christians worldwide and stand in one way or another in the line of "mainstream" Christian history and tradition. These groups ackowledge one another as legitimate expressions of the Church, although several groups among the branches (notably the RCC) make the claim that they are the one true Church and all others, while grace can be found there, are incomplete expressions. The Mormons, et al, are not part of these branches, nor (as I understand it) do they claim to be. In a relatively brief article about Christianity, what is the appropriate way (in my view) to deal with these fringe groups? Well, we do need to mention them, and we need to mention that the three main branches generally do not consider them Christian. (Whether or not we use the word heresy is a legitimate NPOV/POV point to debate.) We also need to provide links to the articles which discuss these groups, so that someone who wants to do more reading can explore these articles. I think that's fair. I'm not asking for more about Methodist history; why put up more about LDS history (for example)?
4. Much of this discussion, it seems to me, is of a more personal nature. I'd be happy to continue the discussion on my talk page...but let's try and keep focus here on edits to the article.

Hope this all helps...KHM03 11:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As I read the article it states that Christianity is presented ususally as three main groups. This "fact" should be referenced. Also, if it is "usually" presented as such, what are the exceptions and why? This seems to be POV and desirous of those who wish to appeal to the traditional Christianity, which is too narrow for the title of this article.

Further, the article refers to restorationist beliefs, but then leaves out both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Jehovah Witnesses. When you read the linked article, the restorationist movement includes them. I see no need to separate them. It unnecessarily chops up the article creating a redundancy.

K, you stated above you still feel it necessary in a generic article about Christianity to label some self-professed Christian groups as non-Christian because they do not follow creeds created 300 years after the time of Christ. I humbly disagree and believe that that is POV standard for a generic article. Please understand, that I don't disagree with position. Readers may read articles on both JW's and Mormons where it clearly states they are viewed as non-Christian and why in their respective articles. However, this is a generic article. In the eyes of a Buddist, a Sikh, or any other non-Christian, it would and does not make sense for any group that follows Christ to be labeled non-Christian. As the article clearly states: "A more comprehensive overview would show more complicated relationships among denominations and traditions", if the objective is to have less comprehensive article, there is no need to single out specific groups. Doing so opens the door for a necessary explanation as to why the label applies and that is an article in itself and not the intent of the article. If we are going to keep it less comprehensive, then we will keep it less comprehensive for everyone. Thoughts? Storm Rider 06:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep reading, dude. The "restorationist" groups initially presented are all more or less standardly trinitarian: The LDS and the JW's are not. This is the dividing line between "standard" and "non-standard" Christianity. If this needs to be clarified in the article, then it does. However, IMHO, I think that overall, the issue is adequately addressed as stated; however, I am open to input from you or others who may disagree: in particular, I am not completely sure that this characterization applies to Swedenborgianism, which is one of the initially presented restorationist groups. Further, I am also aware that while the Churches of Christ are restorationist and trinitarian, they are something of "bastard cousins" to the LDS and vice-versa, although neither side is particularly happy about admitting that. --Midnite Critic 07:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Midnite, I have never heard anyone at any time in the LDS church express any discomfort discussing the affiliation of early LDS church members being previous members of the Cambellite or Church of Christ groups. I don't know where you get your beliefs from, but that are certaintly not facts and should not be presented as such.Storm Rider 18:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Storm Rider, I have restored the sentence "Because of their teachings they are usually considered heretical or non-Christian by other mainstream Christian." We could argue about the "usually" but the content is certainly not POV. This sentence does not say that these groups are non-Christian, as if that were an indisputable fact, but rather says that mainstream Christians often consider them as such. And IMHO it is essential that the distinction between heretical and non-Christian is included. Str1977 07:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem, but it will only stay if you are prepared to list all groups within Prostantism that are considered heretical. Conversely, you are going to have to explain why it is labeled non-Christian by the traditionalist-Christian. I am reverting until it we have handled the issue on the discussion page, which I think is typical WIKI policy and the norm on disputed language. You can't ignore the POV of your position and simply stating does your opinion is not satisfactory. Also, your statements will need to be documented and referenced by other official church sites; otherwise it is just opinion and thus POV. Storm Rider 07:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I know very well that "my position" is POV - just as yours and everyone else is. But this is not so much about my view of any groups (as should be clear by my earlier remark that I think JWs Christians (albeit heretical ones) and Mormons not) but about the editing of this article. This is about how these groups are viewed by others, here by mainstream Christianity. And it is well known that Mormons are "usually" not considered Christians by mainstream Christianity. Why is it disputed language to say that someone calls another one this or that. It is not claiming to be indisputable. And the distinction I'm insisting on is, IMHO, a key one. Sorry, if I can't follow your trail, saying that anyone who says to follow Christ is a Christian. I guess there are many groups that even you wouldn't accept in this manner, let's say [[Anthroposoph]s or Muslims (yes, they claim to follow Jesus Christ, so who are you to say they are not Christian?) Got my point. Of course this all his highly influenced by one's own definition of Christianity and opinions differ, but it makes no sense to gloss over the fact that there is this view about the groups in question.

I will not reinsert it for now, but I will put it into "invisible" brackets, so that it doesn't get lost again. Str1977 08:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Str1977, maybe the simple definition of a Christian was too brief with not explaining "follow". Having read the Quran and discussed Jesus with many Muslims, I can say unequivcally that they follow Mohammad, Jesus was a highly respected prophet, but did not die on the cross. Though the Quran states Jesus was the son of God, he was simply a man incapable of a sacrifice of expiation for mankind. More importantly, THEY say they are not Christian. I have not had occaision to study Anthroposophy and do not know whether they claim to be Christian or not. It is not my position or anyone else to claim whether someone is Christian; rather, I allow them to state it for themselves. I think that is the point, as you say.

The definition of Christianity is highly pertinent and I encourage that it be defined in the article. One can better determine the perspective of the writer and the article. If you feel compelled not to "gloss over" the perspective of some Christians and their opinions of other Christians, fine. But, then you also open the article to having all the opinions of the respective Christian chruches about the doctrine and dogma's of others. Without doing so, you would only being POV in a way unacceptable on WIKI. Storm Rider 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I was just trying to highlight that whatever definition you chose, you will not get to a NPOV conclusion. Muslims say they follow Mohammed and Jesus (NB. Muslims disgust at the idea of a "son of God") and Moses etc, which they claim to have preached the same message. Christians of course disagree. Yes, they don't call themselves Christian. But still it is not enough to say that whoever calls himself Christian, whoever says he follows Christ is by that a Christian. I don't say (and maybe you misunderstand me) that we can really solve this issue here on WP along Wikirules (NPOV etc), but the problem "in the real world" remains. I was only insisting that the issue that these groups are considered non-Christian by mainstream Christianity is included. That's no POV that's reporting a POV (with which you disagree and I agree to some extent). Str1977 17:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Str1977, I guess I am confused; is the title of the article Mainstream Christainity or just Christianity? If you want to change the title to Mainstream Christianity, then do that and I will not have a problem with anything you have written. However, currently the article is entitled Christianity; no qualifications, just generic Christiantiy.

Does it seem balanced and fair to gloss over over differences among the mainstream christian churches and sects by stating "A more comprehensive overview would show more complicated relationships among denominations and traditions" without any mention which groups feel others teach heretical beliefs, etc., but then when it comes to some of the restorationist groups, they must be labeled heretical or even non-Christian? I submit that if you are going to start labeling a few heretical groups, then it is only fair to make it a comprehensive article and go into to depth about the differences between all churches and which possesses heretical beliefs. I guess you will have to use the Catholic chruch since they are the biggest and oldest. Further, how can you define something as non-Christian without defining Christian? Maybe stating the definition would allow readers to understand the perspective of the article. Storm Rider 19:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, where have I proposed excluding these groups from this article. The only thing I insist on is that the fact that these groups are considered non-Christian by mainstream Christianity is included. And that some are considered not merely "heretical" but something different alltogether. I know, some people have difficulties with this distinction. Str1977 17:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider -- You wrote that I "...stated above you still feel it necessary in a generic article about Christianity to label some self-professed Christian groups as non-Christian because they do not follow creeds created 300 years after the time of Christ." That's not what I stated. I wrote that "...we need to mention that the three main branches generally do not consider them Christian." That's the truth; it's not a POV statement...the three main branches do not consider these fringe groups as legitimately Christian...right or wrong, correct or incorrect. Please don't misrepresent my words. I also advocated including links to the major fringe groups (LDS & JWs, at least). Let's be clear as to what I advocate. KHM03 10:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Midnite Critic & Storm Rider - - Wikipedia does make a distinction between Restorationism, a largely 19th century movement which spawned many groups, including the Mormons, and those groups in the Restoration Movement, which, while part of "Restorationism", remained fairly orthodox and traditionally Trinitarian. I had trouble wrapping my brain around that one for a while, too! KHM03 18:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The LDS church, or the Mormons, are classified as part of Restorationism because of their belief in the apostasy. Unlike the majority of others gourps classified as restorationist, it professes that God would need to restore the authority to act in His name upon the earth again. The others take the concept of Sola scriptura to a whole new level. All reject the creeds and councils of the traditional churches and view them as the teachings of man and not of God. Storm Rider 22:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

KHM03: Thanks for clarifying that. After having read the article on Restorationism, I understand more clearly, and it makes sense. However, this begs the question of the relationship of restorationism in this sense to the 19th century Holiness Revival, the rise of contemporary Evangelicalism in the 19th century, their overlap, the subsequent rise of Pentecostalism and Charismatic Renewal and, more specifically, the influence of Darbyism on American Christianity (I mean, the Brethren, whose presence in America is clearly the result of a "British invasion," are also, at least IMHO, also restorationist, and as you know, have had a profound influence in America by way of dispensationalism). The Restorationism article discusses Adventism, which of course, is at least tacitly dispensational. I guess what I'm saying is, while contemporary Evangelicalism, with all these influences, is not in the mainstream of Restorationism, it is clearly restorationist in outlook, at least implicitly. One other point: after reading the article on Swedenborgianism, it seems that the Church of the New Jerusalem should be grouped with the LDS, JW's, et. al., since, at least according to the Wikipedia article, it combines a non-standard Trinitarianism with a "Jesus only" unitarianism; and of course, speaking of that, are the "oneness Pentecostals" mentioned in this article at all? Finally, perhaps we do need to clarify that "standard Trinitarianism" (with or without the filioque) is THE issue which divides (mainstream) Christians from those who name the name of Christ but do not embrace the orthodox doctrine of God. Good dialoguing with you. BTW, while I chose not to identify myself as such on my user page, I am a priest in an independent Syriac Orthodox jurisdiction. --Midnite Critic 21:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Midnite Critic -- Wonderful to have an Orthodox priest contributing here! I have tremendous respect for the Orthodox tradition; it was a huge influence on John Wesley. Great stuff! I agree wholeheartedly that it is the doctrine of the Trinity which divides mainstream Christianity from the fringe groups. There undoubtedly is a relationship between restorationism and the Holiness revival, though it may be more in terms of history than theology. There seems to have been an undercurrent in 19th century American Christendom that religion was getting "flat", and so people began looking at ways to renew. For some, it meant takinng Wesley's pietism to the next level (Holiness); for others, it meant trying to find a basic Christianity stripped of the "extras" (the Restoration movement...Campbellites, Church of Christ, etc.); for still others, it meant rejecting orthodoxy (which was surely perceived as stale and lifeless) in favor of a modified Christianity with more seeming potential (Mormonism, et al).

It may be that the Swedenborgian folks and the one-ness Pentecostals need to be mentioned with the other fringe groups; feel free to make those edits.

Finally, as to the historical and doctrinal connections between Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism/Charismaticism, that would be fascinating to discuss but probably should be done as part of a more "specific" article than this general overview...at least that's my recommendation. KHM03 23:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I have re-posted your post here, in order to answer it:

I must not be a very good communicator. You have indicated that you could not follow my logic or trail; I will try and do better.

I feel the same way, hopefully we can clear it up in some way.

Before stating a group is non-Christian, please define Christian in the article. In doing so, we might illiminate a good deal of confusion that would be engendered by the statement, "Mormons are not Christian". When someone who is not a Christian reads the statement, it is too easy to assume that Mormons do not worship Christ, which is false. I think you will find that the world views Mormons as Christian (it is a little hard not to when the name of the chruch is {{The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of latter-day Saints]]), it is only other Christian churches that feel compelled to draw a distinction and redefine the term Christian so as to exclude Mormons.

We already have defined Christianity in some way in the article. But neither I nor KH wants to include a statement that says "Mormons are not Christian" - I want to state only the fact that mainstream Christians (MSC) usually don't consider these fringe groups Christian. We can also further elaborate on the reasons given for that (now there's only "because of teachings") and include another statement that the groups themselves insist on being Christian or, in your case, that Mormons do worship Christ.

I'm not as confident as you, that everyone views Mormons as Christians, but even if they do that has no bearing either on the truth of that impression or on the need to include the fact that MSC don't agree.

Also, I don't think anyone draws up definitions to exclude Mormons. It's rather the other way round: Mormons don't fit into already existing definitions.

I think it would also be helpful to document by referencing/linking to at least some of those chruches who have stated that Mormons are not Christians. I know ministers who state it, but only a few churches that go so far as to proclaim it.

I can't think of any Christian church or grouping that considers Mormons Christians.

When you define Christian, as you use the term, it is then easy to understand that what you mean is Mormons are not part of historical or traditional Christianity. That is completely appropriate because Mormons claim that all the churches were/are in a state of apostasy. Their creeds are the doctrines of men and have nothing to do with God or His teachings.

Then what is our disagreement, apart from our respective POVs. Why can we not simply include my version. Please specify exactly what you disagreed with (editwise, not contentwise obviously).

A compromise would be If you use "Mormons are not viewed as part of traditional Christianity". However, an alternative would be for you to use the same statement you desire and I would then put in a definition and why Mormons agree with the statement based upon the definition. Storm Rider 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the first proposal, I don't see much difference to my version, regarding the second I don't understand.

Since you asked about definitions, I want to state:

Most MSC make belief in the trinity (i.e. one divine being/substance/usia - three persons/hypostases) the dividing line. Hence they exclude not only Mormons but also JWs and others. Now I, while I certainly disagree with these groups and consider them heretics, I am quite careful whether to deny someone the name Christian. That doesn't mean that they are but I'd rather err on the side of including them into Christianity, albeit as heretics.

With Mormonism, however, I cannot but conclude that it is not Christian. Not so much because of trinity issues, or even the additional revelation, but because of the way Mormons see God not as "the completely other", the one eternal being that is substantially different from creation. Mormons, if I'm not misinformed, believe that God once was not God but was elevated to God-hood by some other superior deity and given the task of creating his own world, and that men today can achieve the same thing. This, I must say, is completely at odds with the Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) view of who and what God is. It's a difference so substantial that I cannot but stick to my view.

But this all is just my definition, my POV and not what the issue here on WP is all about: My point is that we must include that MSC ususually don't consider these groups non-Christian. As NPOV and clearly as possible. Str1977 19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have pretty much explained my position and don't really feel there is more to discuss. Write the article the way you wish and I will make edits. Attempting to explain positions seem a rather futile exercise at the momoent.

As a student of religion, as a High Priest, and a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ who strives daily to follow His example and yet falls forever short, I tell you that there is a difference between what your concept of God the Father is and mine. However, that difference is not nearly as broad as you suppose or been lead to believe. You have referred various beliefs of within The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; it is the typical "shock and awe" statements that is used by most common anti-Mormon literature. It is taken out of context and you would find a greater meaning upon further research, but as you say that is not the purpose of this article. At the end of the day, I assure you that the same God that listens to your prayers, listens to the prayers of every member of the Chruch of Jesus Christ and I think that is the true test of who is "Christian".

We have pretty exhausted this subject; let's move on. 20:42, 18 October 2005 User: Storm Rider

Storm Rider, "Write the article the way you wish" - I did and reinserted the sentence. If the isue I referred to was "taken out of context" and I invite you to put it into context, if you want to, by mailing me on my user page. Thanks. Str1977 22:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Str1977, you keep wanting to use the term non-Christian. If you insist on using it, you will have to define it. Simply stating non-Christian means non-Christian doesn't cut it. It may help if you define what Christian is first. I don't think discussion will help; it sure hasn't helped up to this point. To summarize, you are unable to define Christian except by appealing to the creeds of men created hundreds of years of the time of Christ. I view those creeds to be apostasy and that they have nothing to do with 1st century Christianity. 4th Century Christianity is what you hold to and that is great. BUT never think that you, your church, and any other churh has the right or the ability to define what Christian is. It is beyond you, it is bigger than you, and will always be so because Christ is bigger than you. You may have your elistist little group that comforts you in the dark of night, but save me, my children and all members of all the churches you so blithley put to the side. They are Christian because they say they are. How about letting God take care of the rest. Storm Rider 02:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, why don't you understand me. My edit is not about denying Mormons or whomever the status of Christians. My edit is solely about stating the fact that such fringe groups are considered by mainstream Christians (and yes, that's their POV) heretical or not even Christian (here I disagree with KH who seems to equate the two - I distinguish between heretics, that are still basically Christian but adhere to major or minor errors in doctrine, and non-Christians, that might appeal to Christ in some way but don't stand on the basis of Christ. I am not easily pushing someone out, as I hope my previous post has made clear. Also this edit is not about my view).

Whether they do it rightly or wrongly is another matter and we don't have the space here to explain every reason of every group to think another group Christian or not. The trinitiarian issue is mentioned because it is the most common. On an article on, e.g. the Mormons, there'd be space to explain what complaint's MSC have about.

Discussion hasn't helped, as you don't seem to understand the point of this edit.

"you are unable to define Christian except by appealing to the creeds of men created hundreds of years of the time of Christ"

Yes, I am unable to define Christian (not for WP but for my own use) without appealing to what the actual Christ did and taught, what is recorded of him in Sacred Scripture and what has been handed down to us through Apostolic tradition in the Church. I know that that's a Catholic view but I don't think you are allowed to limit my right to hold that opinion. I don't keep you from sticking to you position, even though I think it wrong and illusionary. And note: you MSC is apostasy - I strongly disagree but I'm not banning your view. MSC see Mormonism exactly the same way. And I advise you not to refer to "creeds of men created hundreds of years of the time of Christ" - 325 AD is later than 30 AD but it's still closer than the 1830s. I for myself wasn't even basing myself on the Nicean creed. As I have stated, I have a hard time calling someone non-Christian because he doesn't believe in the trinity (though I think it a major heresy).

My "elitist little group that comforts (me) in the dark of night" has a membership of one billion, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Why are you shouting about my defining Christianity. You do it just the same. I have every right to make up my mind about Christianity and what it means and I have. So do you and we come to different conclusions. And probbaly we'll not know who's right until HE returns. But then this WP article will be pointless. We have to edit it now and we have to edit it according to reality. If in reality someone thinks this or that we have to report on this, whether you like it or not. That is not putting anyone to the side. Str1977 10:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have posted another wording. Maybe you can live with that. Str1977 10:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I would favor Str1977's edit here because a) it's simpler, less wordy, easier to understand; b) adherence to the ecumenical councils is not the only reason the fringe groups are considered "non-Christian"; and c) elsewhere, the article defines "uniform", "essential" doctrines which include the Trinity, so the implication is that, while there is dissent, Trinitarianism is a "norm" that we don't need to repeat here.

I also do equate "heretic" with "non-Christian", though either word is fine with me, or another, for that matter.

Having said all that, perhaps we need to arrive at a consensus here before we make any more edits. I believe we all want an NPOV article that is also as factual, balanced, and fair as we can get it (understanding that there is very little about Jesus or Christianity that is truly NPOV). I think we could all benefit from a deep breath and a more conciliatory attitude.

Storm Rider -- I think some of your words were unfair. Your own POV lashed out a bit, using words like "elitist". Like it or not, Str1977 is part of the Christian mainstream, and is trying to define Christianity based on the mainstream tradition, which also happens to be the majority. While it's important to mention significant minority views (such as Mormonism), it's also important that they be treated as minorities...respectfully, of course. That's NPOV. There's no need to refer angrily to the "creeds of men" from the 4th century; for most Christians, those creeds help define genuine Christianity, whether any of us like it or not. That's just NPOV reality. The truth is that what Str1977 has been writing is not his personal POV but the truth about how traditional Christianity views Mormonism (et al). We don't have to approve or disapprove of that here, but its' still the way Mormonism is viewed, right or wrong.

Str1977 -- I also think your tense-ness was showing. "Great Whore"? Has Storm Rider used that term? It may be Mormon doctrine (I've no idea), but he never made that accusation.

Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith may be good things for us all to review (myself included).

Let's try and arrive at a friendly, reasonable, NPOV consensus here before beginning any edit wars. That's my two cents. KHM03 12:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for overreacting a bit. I didn't mean to imply that Storm Rider would call her by that name and will censor myself. There are different levels/issues that should be kept apart:

1) our personal belief/POV: each of us adheres to a different version of Christianity (now in the broadest possible sense) and each of us naturally thinks his version to be the true, original one. That shouldn't keep us from fairly discussing the issues at hand here (mainly editing business). Neither of us has to give up his or accept someone else's belief.

2) the general view on Mormonism et al by mainstream Christianity: this should be stated as NPOV as possible, as clearly as possible, as accurate as possible, without making the sentence meaningless in itself (i.e. if A considers B non-Christian that means just that and not that A considers B as non-adhering to this or that council or this and that creed (that might be true as well) but it means that B lacks something A considers to be basic. Listing particulars would be too complicated here.). Whether we happen to agree with it makes no difference.

I will (for the moment at least) restrict my posts on the editing issues and not comment the discussion who's right or wrong or heretical or non-Christian in my view (that can, if it must, go to the talk pages). It was my mistake to illustrate the editing issue by weighing in on the debates behind it.

Str1977 15:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I will attempt to be clear:

1) It is a fact that many traditional/historical Christian churches view Mormons (et al) as non-Christian. There is no argument with this statment. However, my argument is that one must define what those churches mean by stating groups are non-Christian; on what basis and on what doctrine. If you define it, then you will acknowledge that it is the historical and traditional Christian churches and their creation and belief of what was/is doctrine and essential to "their" faith.

2) Creeds and councils of men seems all encompassing; however, if you want to define "the essentials" of the Christian faith, fine. The problem is that you will only come back to the same place...those beliefs/doctrines of the historic Christian churches. For me, a Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Redeemer of Mankind, that He lived and was that Atoning sacrifice to save mankind from sin, He is our master and Lord. In stating this, I must also state that when someone tells me they are Christian, I don't pull out definition and measure their Christianity. They will be Christian becuase they say so, their doctrine may not agree with mine, but that is the most I can say: your doctrine is different.

3) Restorationists claim no part of the historic Christian churches; they are rejected wholesale as the churches of men and not of God; they are in a state of apostasy. I can not speak for other groups classified as restorationist and limit the following comments to the The Church of Jesus Christ as I understand their doctirne. The CofJC may reject the traditional creeds and some of their doctrine, but they respect historic Christian churches, their faith, devotion, truths, and great work they do on bringing people to Christ. The CofJC believes it is the restored church of Jesus Christ---in professing that cliam they necessarily claim they have no part in the historic Christian church and their sects. Is is not offensive for others to acknowledge that fact, but it is highly offensive for any one or any group to attempt to claim any group is not Christian when they profess to be Christian.

4) I believe it impossible for any church or group of churches to be the sole arbiter of defining Christianity. Christ does not belong to any single church or group of churches. Being Christian is a personal engagement between the Spirit and the individual.

Str1977, some of my choicest friends are Roman Catholic priests. They are true Christians. Please do not ever think that you can prove your doctrine by the Bible. All one must do is look around at how many Christian churches there are and know that doctrine is based upon one's own, limited understanding of the scriptures. The Bible has created hundreds, if not thousands of churches, all claiming to be based upon the Bible and yet they have differing doctrines. I seek truth wherever it exists and I find incredible and beautiful truths within the historic Christian churches.

On WIKI we strive to be as NPOV as possible. Without defining what is meant when historic/traditional Christian churches accuse others of being non-Christian, we only end up with an article that is strictly POV and that is unacceptable. There is no arbitor of who is Christain on WIKI and the article should and must be written from that perspective. Storm Rider 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, you raise some excellent points. It looks like there are several points of agreement that may help us reach a meaningful consensus. You say the Restorationists claim no part of the historic Christian churches; the historic Christian churches believe that that distancing separates them from Christianity itself, not just their particular denominations. I think that may be the simplest way of explaining what historic Christian churches mean when they accuse others of being non Christian. There is a commonality of affirming faith in Jesus Christ, but seemingly fundamental differences of understanding who Jesus is and what it means to believe in Him. While there may not be a final arbiter of defining Christianity for the sake of Wikipedia, we can surely spell out what some distinctions among Christians are and how they view each other, can we not? I'm not suggesting a particular version of doing this is perfect, just that it should be theoretically possible to do this well. Wesley 04:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, sticking to editing issues: Are you satisfied with the edit by Midnite Critic:

"These groups are considered heretical or even "non-Christian" by many of the mainstream Christian groups, based on their deviation from tenets considered basic by mainstream Christianity, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Many, if not all, of these groups are nontrinitarian..."

I am satisifed with this if you are.

Though this gives the emphasis on the trinity, it also gives it just as an example (though the prime one). It is clear and non-circumstantial and doesn't make the issue meaningless. Str1977 09:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm just reading this discussion now, as I missed a lot while preparing for exams. I'm happy with what Str1977 suggests. I'll resist the temptation of giving a lengthy account of my own understanding of the word "Christian", but at the very least, it would include a belief that Jesus was "True God and True Man", and that He died to redeem mankind, and then rose from the dead. By the way, maybe my brain is a bit muzzy now from all the revision, but I have no idea what MSC (referred to at the beginning of this thread) means. I'll probably blush furiously when someone enlightens me! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

MSC = "Mainstream Christians". KHM03 11:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

For now I am realtively comfortable with the way it reads. I don't quite understand you preference for mainstream Christiantiy. It is more POV than simply stating historical or traditional Christianity. I noticed you have consistently edit out the later; what is your reason for doing so? Storm Rider 18:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad that you're content, Storm Rider. As for "historic": I though mainstream (which I think is fairly neutral) to be broader, while "historic" seemed to have two problems: the history of many of MSC groups is hardly unbroken, and historic has a bit of a museum-like ring. Str1977 18:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in making me content; your Christ-like attitude is showing through! Much of the beauty about so many of the traditional and historical Christian churches is the fact that they have existed for some 1600 years. That is a line of faith worth acknowledging; I have never felt it was museum-like. Granted many Prostestant churches do not enjoy the same history, but they are worthy of respect and acknowledgement. I would still submit that "mainstream" is a decidedly judgemental and condescending term to refer to those who have Christian beliefs that conflict with yours. To use historic or tradtion simply removes all POV and condescension from the sentence. Go ahead, make me really content and take out the term mainstream.

Ann, your simple definition of a Christian does not conflict with mine. One really does have to go through some leaps of logic from biblical Christianity to get to a point that excludes those groups identified as Restorationist including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Christ and the Apostles were quite simple in identifying those who were His followers and disciples: "Repent and be baptized" and "Come follow me". The machinations of men create the convoluted definitions we hear most often in today's world. They are more about protecting institutions than defending the faith or Christians. Storm Rider 00:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

For now I am realtively comfortable with the way it reads. I don't quite understand you preference for mainstream Christiantiy. It is more POV than simply stating historical or traditional Christianity. I noticed you have consistently edit out the later; what is your reason for doing so? Storm Rider 18:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad that you're content, Storm Rider. As for "historic": I though mainstream (which I think is fairly neutral) to be broader, while "historic" seemed to have two problems: the history of many of MSC groups is hardly unbroken, and historic has a bit of a museum-like ring. Str1977 18:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in making me content; your Christ-like attitude is showing through! Much of the beauty about so many of the traditional and historical Christian churches is the fact that they have existed for some 1600 years. That is a line of faith worth acknowledging; I have never felt it was museum-like. Granted many Prostestant churches do not enjoy the same history, but they are worthy of respect and acknowledgement. I would still submit that "mainstream" is a decidedly judgemental and condescending term to refer to those who have Christian beliefs that conflict with yours. To use historic or tradtion simply removes all POV and condescension from the sentence. Go ahead, make me really content and take out the term mainstream.

Ann, your simple definition of a Christian does not conflict with mine. One really does have to go through some leaps of logic from biblical Christianity to get to a point that excludes those groups identified as Restorationist including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Christ and the Apostles were quite simple in identifying those who were His followers and disciples: "Repent and be baptized" and "Come follow me". The machinations of men create the convoluted definitions we hear most often in today's world. They are more about protecting institutions than defending the faith or Christians. Storm Rider 00:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Christ and the Apostles were quite simple in identifying those who were His followers and disciples: "Repent and be baptized" and "Come follow me". The machinations of men create the convoluted definitions we hear most often in today's world. They are more about protecting institutions than defending the faith or Christians.

Storm, you are surely very right in certain respects. But by the same token, what it means to "follow" Him should not be take for granted. There are Christians--from all points of the spectrum--who maintain that other folks are not complying with what it takes to "follow" Christ. Christ certainly had something in mind when He commanded us to follow Him--thus it is not exclusionary, prejudicial, trivial, or pendantic to say that what it means to "follow" Him is not always obvious, simple, or clear-cut. Were we to go about and do anything we felt like, so long as we could--in our own logic--justify it from Christian teaching, that does not inherently mean we would automatically be "following" Him. Just my two cents. --Dpr 01:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally like the terms 'historic', but that might be because it tends to favor my own predominational church's 2000 year unbroken history. ;-) It's relatively objective because it refers to the church that history has known and that is "on record." I think 'mainstream' generally refers to a plurality of numbers, does it not? In the mid-fourth century or so that definition would make Arianism "mainstream," so it need not be a condescending term. (As an aside, the creeds became convoluted when Arius insisted he could agree with the simpler creeds that were proposed first, while interpreting them in very different ways by changing the intended meaning behind them. They were unfortunately insufficiently precise, and so the Nicene and other creeds had to be formulated that would say more precisely and clearly what the church had always said, without the risk of being distorted as Arius was doing.) What do others think about 'mainstream' versus 'historic'? Wesley 02:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wesley I tend to agree with you, although I can live with "mainstream." None of the mainstream/historic Churches/Ecclesiastical Communities around today are "Arian." Since the problem with Arianism was christological/trinitarian, it would seem that Arianism is most analogous to contemporary groups which are also problemmatic from the same aspect, that is, in terms of their christology and (non-trinitarian/non-standard) trinitarian doctrine of God. --Midnite Critic 07:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This quality conversation is edifying; thank all of you. I sense an openess to discuss rather than proclaim truth and condemn others. Dpr, I agree with you; there is a difference of perspectives on following Christ, but I think we might more in common with than what separates. To follow is to act. It is not a passive position. However, it is when we define being Christian on what one believes...the "essentials" that problems develop. The only essential is accepting Jesus Christ as one's Savior, that he sacrificed his life to pay the price of our sins, that we might live again, and that He is the only way to return to the Father. That is the definition of a Christian and was the definition of a Christian in the 1st century. Conversely, it is not the definition that some historic or traditional Christian churches or their members attempt to use to define being Christian. They are really not defining being Christain, but being a member of their branch of Christianity. Storm Rider 17:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderful thing, to have a simple almost-all-encompassing definition that excludes so very few. The problem is that it so easily encompasses understandings that are polar opposites of each other. To say that Jesus 'sacrificed his life' could mean that he accepted physical death, spiritual death, both, or that the only important thing is that he appeared to physically die. These competing definitions were all being taught within the first two centuries in one form or another, and no one really thought they were all compatible with each other. If we both say we follow Jesus, but describe Jesus in fundamentally contradictory ways, how do we know we're talking about the same Jesus? The very idea that there can be multiple "branches" of Christianity didn't really arise, I don't think, until the Protestant Reformation, when the Reformers realized that they disagreed too much with each other to form one coherent church and had too much pride to submit to one another. The threat of this certainly existed in the first century, and such divisiveness was soundly condemned. That early church did not accept the idea of 'multiple branches' of Christianity as that term is understood today. I don't mean to insult anyone personally or disrepect anyone's path. At the same time, it seems profoundly unhelpful, not to mention historically inaccurate, to suggest that having different answers to fundamental questions like "who is Jesus?" doesn't really matter. Wesley 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

A very interesting question, but one that I think is misleading. The question is who follows Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. The question you are asking is divisive and only leads to conflict. It is a good question for discussion of doctrine, but not for defining who is Christian. It is unfortunate that Christ has been made an institutional entity by man, but fortunately He will always be a personal Lord and Savior.

I was recently listening to EWTN and a convert minister (and now a priest, I think) who leads a talk show was speaking about his conversion from being a Protestant to Roman Catholicism; he described his gratitude for leaving the pagan gods of Protestantism. This is a very strong position against anyone who believes differently from how the Roman Catholic church defines Christ. I suspect that this priest would also agree that Protestants are non-Christian. I think that would be an error.

The problem is that no one or no church is the arbitor of defining who is Christ. Many Protestants will teach that there is only one answer, Sola scriptura, but that is problematic because everyone, all Christians I know, use the New Testament and claim to teach the truth, yet there is still conflict. Historic Christian churches, those that support the Creeds and Councils say, "here are the gospel essentials"; but the problem there is that they were created over 300 years after Christ and were the initial result of Constantine's desire to form a state church. Not an auspicious beginning for churches or doctrine supposedly coming directly from God. Revelation is not ruled by the majority, nor is it a democratic process which was the result of the doctrine produced by the councils.

I am aware of only one Jesus of Nazareth. Christians worship that individual, the Son of God. For everyone who is not Christian in the world, they do not make these fine distinctions we make amongst ourselves. We have different denominations that allow us to separate ourselves by belief. I would ask how you define all of those people, I suspect may be the actual majority, who are not members of any Christian church, yet believe in God and Jesus Christ; they simply refuse to belong to organized religion. By the definitions you have created they would be non-Christian. The definitions you tout are only appropriate for defining members of the historic Christian chruch, period. To go further is deny the definition of 1st century Christianity and that which Christ used in the New Testament. Storm Rider 07:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider, thanks for your kind words above (appearently my immediate response got lost in the mists of the Internet).

I am really trying to be as inclusive as possible (though the article has to reflect not my opinion but the "reality out there", whether we agree or disagree), but for the reasons given above I cannot be of assistance to you as you'd wish.

I also tend to agree with Wesley. Of course, we all like peace, but if questions or conflicts arise it is no option to simply ignore them (believe me, even this strategy has been tried in the 4th century). We have to address them, though as "gently" as possible. Discernment is needed. If you say these questions are divisive I agree, but I also say that we can't help it. Issues have to be addressed and sometimes differing views cannot be reconciled either with each other or with Him as we know Him. You talk about Christ as personal Lord and saviour. I agree and that's exactly my point: if Christ is a real man who walked the earth at a specific time and said specific things, these specifics do matter when one wants to follow Him. I grant you that you try to follow Him just as MSC do and that you honestly believe to be correct in our differences. But belief doesn't create reality. In the end, when it comes to our differences, not all can be right.

I agree with you, Storm Rider, about the guy on EWTN, but please don't believe that that's the standard Catholic approach to Protestantism, which is considered neither pagan nor non-Christian.

"Many Protestants will teach that there is only one answer, Sola scriptura, but that is problematic because everyone, all Christians I know, use the New Testament and claim to teach the truth, yet there is still conflict."

You're right on this and this is why I don't adhere to sola scriptura. Hence I do say that there is one Church who is arbiter of defining what the Christian truth is and what not (and not just who Christ is).

"Historic Christian churches, those that support the Creeds and Councils say, "here are the gospel essentials"; but the problem there is that they were created over 300 years after Christ and were the initial result of Constantine's desire to form a state church."

Sorry, you got your history wrong. The Nicean creed wasn't the first creed around. Every church used creeds in their baptism liturgy, asking the catechumen "Do you believe ..." to which the answer is "I believe ...". And the Nicean council wasn't the first council that condemned a heresy and excommunicated its proponents. The only difference was that it was an ecumenical, i.e. "global" (in Roman terms), synod.

Constantine didn't create a state church. However, he (apart from his personal beliefs) saw Christianity as a chance to bring peace and unity to his fragmented Empire. Where the old Roman gods had failed, he thought Christianity could succeed. But this aim was thwarted by inner-Christian disputes. Constantine only pushed the bishops to reach a resolution. He did not dictate anything on them. And what they decided was nothing new, but rather in line with what was taught before, albeit more clearly.

Still, even if you were right, 300 years after Christ still beats 1800 years after Christ.

Now, I wouldn't call the Nicean creed the Gospel essential. It was the answer to a certain dispute at a certain time. However, the Church cannot go back on this answer.

"Revelation is not ruled by the majority, nor is it a democratic process which was the result of the doctrine produced by the councils."

You're right. But neither do the councils claim to have any special revelation. General revelation (which is all that's needed, to be distinuished from private revelation) ended with the Apostles, nor did or do the councils decide simply by majority. And don't forget the work of the Holy Spirit. This is exactly the way, matters were settled in the 1st century, see Acts 15. Of course you need faith to understand this and of course we could all be wrong. But I don't believe we are.

"For everyone who is not Christian in the world, they do not make these fine distinctions we make amongst ourselves."

I'm not sure that this is true. But even if it is. I have had reporters talk about Christmas being the feast of the "rebirth of Christ". Ignorance cannot be an argument.

I also don't like this talk about "different Christs" (though it is taken from Galatians).

This is one of the reasons why I prefer to use the term "heretical" as long as I can and resort to "non-Christian" only if I must.

As for your non-denominationals. I wouldn't dispute that they are (by and large, we'd have to consider individual cases) Christian, though they shun part of what Christ taught.

"To go further is deny the definition of 1st century Christianity and that which Christ used in the New Testament."

No, in the 1st century it was quite clear who a Christian was: a follower of Jesus Christ baptized and belonging to his Church. It is later that things got complicated.

It is only your POV, that the 4th and the 1st century were in conflict. That's what you call "apostasy". But I don't buy it. Please accept that. Keep your POV but leave mine to me.

Str1977 08:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Str1977, I get the impression that you think I am condemning your beliefs. I am not; I accept your beliefs and your faith. However, I ask that you allow the possibility that Christianity is greater than the definition you propose. The question on the table is labeling groups non-Christian because they do not believe in those doctrines commonly labled as "gospel ssentials". The problem with the "essentials" is that they are institutional in nature. At no time did God or Christ ever say to be Christian one must believe these specific things. It is appropriate to identify someone or some group as not belonging to historical or traditional Christian churches. However, it is not acceptable to label someone as non-Christian just becuase they don't agree with your doctrine. Also, I believe it is just as easy today in identifying Christianity as it was in the 1st century.

As an aside, you have consistently pointed out the "my church is older than your church" position. This would have been a similar position of the Pharisees towards Christ and the apostles. Their "religion" had been around for thousands of years and here was this upstart creating a new sect. For Christians we see that as the planned evolution of God's plan, the jewish people as a whole simply did not recognize it as such. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes it is the restored church of Jesus Christ upon the earth. In other words, that church of the first century with prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers is the same church that was restored. Just as you want me to allow for your POV and your faith, please allow me mine. It is my faith that you are wishing to deny not the other way around. You are attempting to deny my belief in Jesus Christ and label me a non-Christian. Storm Rider 17:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider,

I allow the possibility that I could be wrong and you could be right.

I also want to assure you that I respect your beliefs, though I do not share them.

I think you grant me the same privileges, though you think the Church is in apostasy. All in all, our respective views mirror each other.

I don't whether we should discuss our differences here. If we do, passages like "problem with the "essentials" is that they are institutional in nature. At no time did God or Christ ever say to be Christian one must believe these specific things" are valid expressions of your view, to which I can respond with my view. However, such passages cannot be the basis for editing the article.

"It is appropriate ... it is not acceptable" - that's a matter of POV. What we currently have in the article I think is accurate, namely: that these groups are considered ... because of e.g. ...

"As an aside, you have consistently pointed out the "my church is older than your church" position. This would have been a similar position of the Pharisees towards Christ and the apostles. Their "religion" had been around for thousands of years and here was this upstart creating a new sect."

No. Firstly, you brought up the point of "The Nicean creed came only 300 years later", to which I respond: Joseph Smith only came 1800 years later. Secondly. Jesus didn't really start a new religion but brought the old religion to fulfillment. To express myself more "objectively": Christianity did not evolve our of Judaism as we know it but both are the surviving branches of 1st century Judaism, both claiming to be the true one. Thirdly, the Pharisees existed at best for 500 years, at least for 150 years. Forthly, IMHO it makes some difference whether the Messiah climbs the scene and says this and that to others or whether we have a little chat on Wikipedia or somewhere else. Don't you think?

"the jewish people as a whole simply did not recognize it as such" - No. The religion of Judaism, based on Rabbinical teachings recorded in the Talmud, and the later groups it spawned, they don't recognize it as such. Not "the Jewish people as a whole". Many Jews at various times accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

I definitely allow you your POV and your faith.

But I think we can agree that I don't consider Mormonism Christian (as much as I wanted to treat just as I treat the JWs) and you consider my Church apostate. If you really mean "apostate" when you say "apostate", then our positions on the others religion are exactly the same. Still I respect you and your beliefs, but I guess it'd be best to end this discussion. The editing dispute is, if I'm not mistaken, solved and we have already occupied way too much space with this discussion (mostly my fault).

Str1977 19:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)