User talk:KHM03/Christian theology

Created template

Created the template. I start with foundations (Jesus, Bible, etc.). Then, major schools...all 3 major groups plus a few significant "sub-groups" primarily Protestant in nature. Then important figures...just the BIG names (I even left off my own beloved John Wesley). Finally, key issues. The template as I look at it still needs work; especially, it needs a look at Orthodox Christianity, as the template seems to be to favor the West. Any help is appreciated...thanks...KHM03 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

I added a lot more schools of theology. If this is going to be used as a helpful navigational tool, it needed to be expanded in this area. Regarding the Western focus, I have never even heard of any different schools of Eastern Christianity. My sense is that theology has not progressed in the east. Perhaps I am wrong. Also, I added a "Biblical Interpretation" category with the intent of listing various methods of interpretation, i.e. ways at arriving at theology. Guðsþegn – U T C E – 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a few schools (Arianism, Gnosticism, etc.) which may or may not even be Christian (perhaps a link to "heresy" somewhere would be appropo?). I removed a few others which are basically outgrowths of other schools (Puritanism, Revivalism, etc.). Changed "Martin Luther" to "Luther", etc., in an effort to keep the template size relatively small. What did you have planned for Biblical interpretation? KHM03 20:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back "Western Christianity" (aka Catholicism, in the broad sense), with a line under to show that all the following topics fall under that category. I want, as a Protestant/Evangelical, to hang on to the term "Catholic". I think the new organization is helpful. I do think that Puritanism should be re-included. I agree that Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. are not true Christianity, but they are in the Christian stream of history, and if we are counting true Christianity, a couple of other names would have to be done away with as well. I was trying to be encyclopedic, but I have no personal desire to lead people to open themselves to such heresies.

Guðsþegn – U T C E – 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format

A footer template like Template:Illinois or Template:Philosophy navigation might be a neater way of including a more complete set of links. A.J.A. 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. KHM03 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major schools section

Like it or not, I think Jehovah Witnesses and the Latter Day Saint movement or Mormonism should be added under the line break below "Major schools of theology." Combined, then are around 30 million or more adherents, and offer doctrines are distinct. I know many will debate whether or not they are even Christian, but they have both affected the Christian world moreso than many give credit for - especially with their large proselytizing programs. Another grouping should include Christian New religious movments, but am unaware of such an article at this time. -Visorstuff 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mormonism is fair, since it's such a large group. But the JWs are relatively tiny. KHM03 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the new additions and added "Restorationism" which covers Mormonism and JWs. Guðsþegn – U T C E – 03:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a list of Churches, but schools of theology. Guðsþegn – U T C E – 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either the Assyrian Church becomes an "-ism" or it's gone.

Guðsþegn – U T C E – 04:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, dude. No need to get testy. It certainly needs to stay, since it represents an Eastern alternative to both septocounciliar Byzantine/Eastern Orthodoxy and tricounciliar Oriental Orthodoxy in that it accepts only TWO ecumenical councils. However, I can think of no neat way to summarize its theology: "Orthodoxy" is not a term the Church itself uses and "Assyrian Catholicism" would be confusing as well. I am open to consistency in this, but I am more concerned that the Church be represented than in absolute consistency. Maybe just "Assyrian Christianity?" That works for me. Okay with you?

--Midnite Critic 04:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Assyrianism"? The word doesn't have to be used, just technically accurate, and promote the ease of theological discussion. I don't particularly like "Assyrian Christianity" because "Christianity" could just as easily be added to any of the traditions. It needs an "-ism" or "-y" (as in Orthodoxy) ending to keep it referring to a theology. Just because a church has a unique flavor doesn't make it a must have keeper. We are leaving off a number of Protestant groups, including my own, Baptists. Guðsþegn – U T C E – 04:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Assyrianism" is interesting; it would certainly be a neologism and therefore, might come under the category of "original research." While I personally think that "Baptist thought" should be included, it does overlap with some other major categories, such as Evangelicalism, although it is distinct, being either a sub-category of Evangelicalism, or perhaps better, a category which intersects with it, as well as with Fundamentalism and even, to some extent, Pentecostalism. However, the existence, thought, history and significance of the Assyrian Church is unique; and since it is probably not well known to most Wikipedia readers, should be presented as nonconfusingly as possible. --Midnite Critic 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Assyrian theology" (and also perhaps "Baptist theology" or "credobaptism")? It is referring to a theology and yet not a neologism (btw, credobaptism is actually used in technical conversations). Guðsþegn – U T C E – 10:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]