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 topics 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]

Mormons and some religious scholars would disagree that this church belong under "Restorationism" as they are unrelated to the kinds of schisms experienced by the Church of Christ et. al. The LDS Church did not break off from any other faith. Certainly there is no mention of the LDS faith under Restorationism. It is a unique Christian church founded on wholly new doctrines and revelations, doctrines that are not followed by any other church. As it is now, the fastest growing Christian church in the world with 13+ million members worldwide, more than half outside the U.S., a church that has been ackowledged as having had a vast impact on the American pioneer and religious scene, and it is not found anyplace under Western Christianity. This needs to be addressed. Perhaps the label "Major Schools of Theology" should be recast as "Distinct Schools of Theology," allowing the LDS Church to be added. --Btphelps 6:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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]

I have no problem with including Baptists. Just list them as Baptist as far as I'm concerned. Also, it is appropriate to list -oxy groups with -ism groups. "Assyrian Orthodoxy" or "Calvinism" are boith acceptable, linguistically. The question I would ask is: Is the Assyrian group large enough to merit inclusion? We're leaving off bunches of smaller groups. Just a question. KHM03 11:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the inclusion of Restorationism as a "catch-all". Good idea. KHM03 11:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Old Catholicism really so distinctive that it merits a mention here? I plead ignorance...enlighten me! KHM03 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know. It does show that Roman Catholicism is not a uniform monolith.

Guðsþegn – U T C E – 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key Points

I added Gregory Palamas to the major figures, as I think he was the last Orthodox theologian to significantly expand our thinking/understanding of theology. I wonder if Hesychasm would be worth adding under Key Points? What about Original sin or something about End Times or Eschataology? I'm not certain myself that any of these need to be added, just throwing them out for discussion. Wesley 06:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Hesychasm should be added. Instead of Original sin, however, I would suggest adding The Fall of Man since this concept is broader than the former. Regarding Eschatology, I think there should be section devoted to theological sub-disciplines, including eschatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, christology, etc. --Midnite Critic 13:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Added Fall of Man, Church, and Future/End times. Christology and soteriology can be found via Christ and Salvation. --

Guðsþegn – U T C E – 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Palamas the most significant post-Schism figure in Eastern Christianity? I don't know. Obviously we need to put the most important figure in the list, but I have no idea if he is it. Guðsþegn – U T C E – 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; is that Palamas? KHM03 02:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he is. --Midnite Critic 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant theology / Dispenastionalism

Are these necessary? We can't list every school of theology. Covenant theology is (as I understand it) a "subset" of Reformed/Calvinist thought, whereas Dispensationalism is related to Fundamentalism. I don't think we should link them here. KHM03 18:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think we need "Old Catholicism". We already have "Roman Catholicism" and "Thomism". Is there distinctive theological development beyond that? KHM03 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Catholicism is theologically indistinguishable from Anglicanism, given its main disagreement is papal infallibility. In fact they are in full communion with Canterbury. So I think I will remove it. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 22:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

There are likely hundreds of Christian-related schools of thought we could list...we've just tried to stick to the most notable, the most prominent, the most historically important. Anarchsim is a relatively minor school (compared to, say, Thomism or Calvinism). I removed it. KHM03 11:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Paul

Paul should be included in this template. He wrote most of the christian canon. His works predate all others in the christian canon. He outweighs the 12 apostles in significance with relation to christian theology. The article about the 12 apostles doesn't really relate to theology per se. Paul is 4th in a list below Judas Iscariot and Matthias. His importance to christian theology is being understated. I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about this. joshbuddy^talk 18:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - After looking at the 12 Apostles page (with its bare inclusion of Paul), and considering that Paul has affected the Church practically as much as the Twelve combined, we should list Paul. So, under "Important Figures" the first line would be: Twelve Apostles · Apostle Paul, second line: Church Fathers · Athanasius · Augustine etc. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 15:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will assume silence equals agreement, and go ahead and make the changes. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation as a key point

Creation was removed as a key point. I'm not sure why. I think it is rather major for Christianity, but I'm not qualified to judge. In any case, because it wasn't clear what was wrong with including it under key points from the edit summary, I put the link back in.

If any editors are knowledgeable on Creation (theology) and would like to help expand/edit/redact that article, such would be appreciated.

--ScienceApologist 15:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted the thing slimmer ("creation" made it wider), so I kept creation, and dumped theosis, because theosis is just the orthodox understanding of sanctification, which is already linked, and includes a link to theosis. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 18:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Jesus

Is there a reason why Jesus is not listed as an Important Figure in Christian Theology?