Talk:List of Christian denominations/Archive 1

message: I established a separate group under Anabaptist (though an argument could be made to move them under Pietist), and I labeled them Schwarzenau Brethren (recognizing their origin and differentiating from other "Brethren" groups). I moved the Old German Baptist Brethren there, because they are "Brethren" rather than "Baptist" in origin. I added other Schwarzenau Brethren groups. Unrelated, but I also moved Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church under Pentecostal. They grew out of the Free Will Baptists, but are Pentecostal in doctrine and practice, and seem to identify with the Pentecostal rather than Baptist movement, as seen, for example, in their membership in the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America. Rlvaughn 04:06, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Brethren

message: "Unity Chu" caught my eye and I figure it has to be a typo. The Association of Unity Churches website consistently refers to the belief system by the single word "Unity" so that's how I listed it. Their Q&A page says "Unity and Christian Science, as well as many other New Thought groups, had their beginnings in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Many of the leaders in these groups studied under the same teachers...." so it ssems to be under an appropriate subhead.
Dpbsmith 19:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Unity

message: Do y'all think that the article would be improved by replacing the outline structure with a heading structure, that would show up in the TOC?  I'm thinking, just only the first level of the outline should be replaced with headings; e.g., instead of 
 * Anglicans
it would be:
 ===Anglicans===
Mkmcconn 16:09, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  I experimented with converting the list from bullets to TOC, and it just doesn't work.  I withdraw my suggestion.  Mkmcconn 18:24, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready for sub-headings?

message: CS really belongs under an "other" category like (since it is) "Other Non-Trinitarian", so I'm planning to move it.  While New Thought has significant influences from Mary Baker Eddy students, the non-Wiki Unity site mentioned above is pretty mistaken in labeling CS a New Thought belief, since CS disavows a great part of New Thought, particularly the latter's concept of divine personal empowerment, teaching instead complete individual dependence on and obedience to the God of Judeo-Christian history.  CS identifies itself explicitly (as its name indicates) as Christian and conforms to the AHD dictionary definition above.  Mary Baker Eddy founded it on an understanding of the Biblical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as the prophesied Messianic Savior of mankind and acknowledged his virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension.  While CS does claim denominational uniqueness and mission consistent with and subordinate to its Biblical understanding, there is virtually not a Christian faith that in some form or another doesn't do the same, -- and the Non-Trin label strikes me as really the best you could find here.   
chris_rodgers 05:40, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that I read your comment here; because I was preparing to put CS into the New Thought category. Mkmcconn 20:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Science

message: Some time ago, User:Tb suggested that a list should exist which roughly categorizes the descendent denominations in families related by doctrinal history.  Although I think that this would be very hard to do for every group, I do agree that this would be helpful in terms of a general outline.  Please review his suggestion under Anglicans above, and give thought to how we could create a list that would organize families of churches in the terms he suggests. Regrettably, it appears that Tb is no longer active, and will not be following through on what he proposed. Mkmcconn 18:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: One difficulty I see here is that the 'family tree' of religions is not just split-split-split. Mergers and subsequent resplits make creating a tree structure much more difficult, if not impossible. I don't think it is proper for this list, though. Perhaps as a separate article, since a significant number of links on the tree should be to religions which no longer exist (becuse of schism or merger or extinction). UtherSRG 18:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I'm thinking.  This list is very legible and easy to understand, in my opinion.  Perhaps it would work to have another, briefer list (a separate page), that summarizes the tree somewhat like the tree on the Christianity page. But, I agree with you that, trying to reflect the same thing on this page would not work. Mkmcconn 18:21, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review Tb's suggestions 

message: Mkmcconn, the Church of Christ, Instrumental is a Baptist "schism". At the time I posted the article, I couldn't decide where to put them, so I just stuck them in for the time. I suppose listing them under miscellaneous is as good, if not better, as any other location. They are quite similar to Free Will Baptists. Broadly, they are "Baptistic", but the problem with putting them under Baptist, IMO, is that they do not consider themselves to be Baptists. They were slightly influenced by Methodism, but not enough to be considered Methodist or Holiness. So, considering they don't seem to fit anywhere, miscellaneous seems quite appropriate. - Rlvaughn 21:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation, and for your astounding number of contributions to our articles on Christian denominations.  Mkmcconn 22:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Christ, Instrumental