Template talk:Protestantism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Do we really want to separate denominations and movements of Protestantism into "major" and "minor" branches? It seems irrelevant for an infobox. One could argue that the Quakers and Mennonites had outsized influence in certain areas of Western culture (anti-slavery, early U.S. history) or that the Waldensians were not even protestants at all. I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts on just combining "major" and "minor" into "Branches."

Mennonites are included in Anabaptists, a major branch recognized for its contributions and tremendous historical impact, despite its relatively small membership. Waldensians are widely recognized as pre-Protestant and with the Reformation aligned themselves to the Reformed tradition. I don't see how they're not Protestants. Major branches outlined in the infobox have a considerable membership or impact, whereas minor branches were largely localized (Hussites, Waldensians) or small minor movements when compared to the 8 major branches (Plymouth Brethren, Quakers, Holiness - perhaps the largest, but still somewhat within Methodism and restricted to the United States). I think the separation is appropriate.Ernio48 (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I see your point on Waldensianism, but respectfully disagree with the idea that there needs to be a separation according to size of denominational membership. Any other contributors want to add anything?Auranor (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Another way to do it besides the way listed here is to separate them by historical movements.
Possible hierarchy:
1. Pre-1517
2. Magisterial Reformation
3. Radical Reformation
4. Pietism
5. First Great Awakening
6. Second Great Awakening.
(possibly combine 4 & 5 or 1 and 3)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


The template would be more informative if the regional churches were grouped by the major communions, with one communion per reformation: the Lutheran Reformation, the Zwinglian/Calvinistic Reformation, the Radical Reformation, and the Anglican Reformation, though the last reformation might arguably be included as Calvinistic or even excluded as Catholic. An alternative approach (requiring more work) would replace the regional churches with the major communions/reformations, putting the emphasis on theology rather than geography and politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbickel (talkcontribs)

African initiated church[edit]

Hazhk What makes you think that African initiated churches are not worth including among the nondenominationals or house churches? Let's stick to this classification, so we can somewhere with this template?


Ernio48 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

African initiated church is not a movement, it's a term used to describe churches/denominations that are indigenous to Africa, established by Africans and not introduced by colonialism. It isn't a stand-alone movement and the churches often fit within the Protestant branches, typically Pentecostal; the Ethiopian churches are Orthodox, not Protestant. -- Hazhk (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
What about the Zion Christian Church in South Africa? Its an African initiated church in its own right.Ernio48 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It appears to be an idiosyncratic denomination with various theological roots; the articles names traditional African philosophy, Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism as influences. I personally don't regard African initiated churches as a "movement", since there doesn't appear to be any teachings or emphasises common to these churches. However, I'm happy to defer to your opinion on the matter and not object to you reinstating the link to the template. -- Hazhk (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)