Talk:Christian Church/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV problems

My apologies for spoiling the party, but I arrived from the Heresies page and you need to become more NPOV, imho. I write as one of the instigators within Brussels of the European History project aimed at providing a consolidated history of the continent, eliminating the chauvinist discrepancies in each nation's National Histories by showing the different viewpoints of the protagonists, and explaining the outcome. My source paper was presented to the Education Council of the European School in 2006 and the examples miraculously cropped up in the announcement by Angela Merkel and Jacques Chirac in 2007: I chose the effective absence of any mention of the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 in English history (it lost them the Angevin Empire and most of their European influence) and the Battle of Agincourt (Azincourt) in 1415 in French history (although it lost them the cream of their nobility, it allowed visionary youngsters to come to power more rapidly, using technological innovation - gunpowder - which made France the dominant European power by the end of the Century).

The history of the Church has been riddled with dissent, from the followers of Paul and James in the Council of Jerusalem of 50CE, to the great denominational schisms between and within the Eastern and Western churches and between Rome and Protestantism, to the sects of the twentieth Century. For any one viewpoint, there's almost by definition another one, yet there's not a link to the Heresies page nor any attempt to show both sides. In particular, I consider the introduction section also specifically breaches NPOV, as it seems to be unfairly weighted to the Roman creed, possibly because much of the religious content of Wikipedia was sourced from the Catholic Encyclopaedia - see, for instance, the link to the Body of Christ which is to a page entitled "Mystici Corporis", "of the mystic body" which is a specifically Roman concept with subtexts relating to very specific Roman doctrines in the theology of the Victorine school as enounced by Jan van Ruisbrook in his "On the Spiritual Tabernacle".

Introduction Section

Let me comment on the section paragraph by paragraph, so you can see how it might be improved. As the plaintiff, I do not feel I should make the changes myself, but I would appreciate some non-sectarian thinking here.

Paragraph 1

The first paragraph is relatively uncontroversial. Let it stand for the moment, but as you refer to the Pentecostal origins, then it becomes difficult to exclude Jesus' commission to Peter as the rock on which the church should be built, to start bringing out the descent of the different branches of the church. That will then require balancing by mention of other Apostolic fathers of the Orthodox church and the Pauline churches of Asia Minor. It is insufficient to leave the explanation to the child article.

Paragraph 2

Sentence 1 starts in with an NPOV infraction, in that the subordinate clause implicitly excludes that spiritual guidance in all other churches, which is clear nonsense! That clause belongs somewhere in Paragraph 1.

Sentence 2 should be divided, as the first clause defines your terms of reference, and should be the first sentence of the Article. The remainder extends the argument of the previous sentence, but it breaches NPOV as it promotes the distinction between the Roman and Orthodox on the one hand, and all other fellowships on the other, to a fact, although it is only a claim in the first paragraph. The terms legitimate and deviant are particularly offensive:

1. There is no such consideration in International Law, merely in Roman Canon Law which is generally considered both subordinate to International and National legislation and also specific to the Roman Church alone as a sub-domain of contract law.

"which is generally considered" is nonsense. Roman Canon Law is fully sovereign and independent of International and national legislation. It belongs to the sphere of the Church, not of the State. Stating the contrary amounts to caesaropapism or the dominance of the state over the church. --Stijn Calle (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The term deviant is by definition an overt breach of NPOV unless claimed by the body in question. The offence is compounded by the use of the word true, implying the others are at least deluded, probably false, and possibly malevolent.

The first half of Sentence 3 belongs in Paragraph 1. The second half is tautologous with the first sentence, and can be resolved by the insertion of the words "dispute the" before the word "claim". Sentence 4 should be the second sentence of the paragraph to maintain the logic of the argument. Sentence 5 is just argumentative: unless a firm justification can be found substantiating the "feeling", it should be removed. Sentence 6 is fine.

Paragraph 3

Sentence 1 attributes something which is not true to the Protestant view. It should be removed and a fresh paragraph added to discuss the Protestant viewpoint.

Paragraph 4

This is tautologous with the final clause of the first sentence of Paragraph 2, now moved to Paragraph 1. It should be removed.

A draft edition might therefore be:

This ecclesiology describes Christian fellowships in the largest sense. Christian Church and the word church are used to denote both a Christian association of people and place of worship. The word church is usually, but not exclusively, associated with Christianity, specially guided by the Holy Spirit as the Body of Christ. The term means something quite different for each religious institution that sees itself as belonging to the Christian traditions. The word 'church' (lower case c) also describes particular different groups of tradition within the Church, e.g. the Syro-Malabar Rite church as a particular church within the 'Catholic Church', as is each diocese.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches each dispute the claim to be the one Church established by Jesus Christ. The other Eastern churches such as the Oriental Orthodox are also viewed by both in this way. Other churches, not in full communion with the preceding, are recognised to varying degrees. Neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Catholics recognise Protestants as 'churches' at all, describing them as communities in imperfect communion with the Church, as they have not maintained the particular features of historic Christianity (such as Apostolic succession) that the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox define as conferring 'church' status.

The Protestant Churches consider that a number of hierarchical doctrines of the foundation churches are incompatible with the Christian mandate of love.

From the secular viewpoint, the Christian Church is a religiously ambiguous and cultural-sociological term refering to all religions based on the worship of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God. It is not a single religious institution, neither a single faith. Today there is no single political entity recognized by the secular world as the unique Christian Church.

References

Terminology

The first paragraph starts with the word "Throughout". That is not valid, as the concepts described certainly did not exist in the BCE period. It would be better omitted, thus: Various terms have been used... Moreover, it would be better to qualify each definition by its origination and mutation.

As an example, although it was originally invoked by various texts quoted by Jesus, not least in references to his Centurion followers, the concept of the Church Militant in the form discussed in Paragraph 6 was probably first adopted during the Crusades: I leave it to the Crusade specialists to provide the exact attribution. The eventual Saracen victory would have probably laid the question to rest, had it not been for its promotion by Pope Eugene IV (Gabriele Condulmer) as his Papal mandate, as shown in Dufay's 1432 Coronation Anthem Ecclesie Militae, part of his agenda to reestablish Papal Authority over the Consilium, which had previously controlled the Papacy by representing the foremost secular powers, the Holy Roman Emperor (as King of Germany) and the Kings of France, Spain, Portugal and England. Eugene was Venetian, and little minded to respect his nation's enemies: it is also clear from the records of the Council of Basel/Florence that Eugene had a pre-established agenda of promoting military support for the Orthodox Churches in Venice's Balkan, Greek and Peloponese client territories, faced with the rising Ottoman Empire - to the point of agreeing the surrender of the Orthodox Churches, which is not irrelevant to the posting here! The reason this became a matter of mere historical note is that the Duke of Savoy, acting as an "antipope", somewhat displaced him from 1440 onwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.135.196 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 19 February 2009

References

End of the East-West Schism

If the East-West Schism ever unexpectedly came to an end, would all this talk about the Church being undefinable and pluralistic also cease to a large extent ? Because if you take into account the fact that Catholics and Orthodox have identical official positions on 95 % of issues, much of the language on the divided Church would become outmoded and much of Protestantism along with it. In part, the Reformation came about as a project to reconstruct the Church after 500 years of separation between East and West. There have been 500 years since the Reformation and another 500 years of East-West Schism. I am wondering what would happen to the Protestant churches if the Catholic and Orthodox all of a sudden began to heal the wounds in the body of Christ together, while leaving out any trace of Reformed theology ? ADM (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article Christian Church, not for general discussion of the topic. Especially not for speculative discussion of how things might be if they were different. —Angr 08:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholicity

Why does catholicity redirect here? This word means 'liberality; universality; comprehensiveness; wide ranging', in addition to 'applying to the catholic church'. Should it have a disambiguation page, instead? Here's the dictionary definition here. Llamabr (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm redirecting it to Catholic, which makes more sense. +Angr 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a bit better, though, then, I think Catholic maybe needs some updating to reflect the etymology of that word. But that's an issue for that page, not this one. Llamabr (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Apostolic Church (denomination) be merged into this article, which already discusses the Apostolic Church in the context of the Christian Church rather than in isolation. PL290 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What? This article doesn't even mention Pentecostalism, let alone the Apostolic Church or other individual Pentecostal denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.93.147 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no logic in the proposal: no reason given for depriving this denomination alone of a specific article. Or does someone think that the denomination that calls itself the Apostolic Church is the only Christian Church there is? Another idea that lacks logic. Soidi (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, ridiculous suggestion. This page can't possible discuss every single Christian denomination, and there's no reason this one individual denomination alone should be discussed here. However, since Apostolic Church isn't doing anything but disambiguating between Apostolic Church (denomination) and Christian Church, there's no reason Apostolic Church (denomination) couldn't be moved to Apostolic Church, with a hatnote pointing readers here (or better yet pointing them to Apostolic Age) for a discussion of the other possible meaning of the phrase. +Angr 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Formatting questions,

Esoglou, You were correct in that the reference to the first Christian heretic to be executed needed some clarification. I believe I have clarified this in the article. Thanks. As for your preference to de-emphasize the date that Christianity was first made the state Church of Rome. I would like to know why you do not consider this date to be notable enough to deserve a clear sentence about it at the head of a paragraph? As for the formatting details, I tested this page on both an MS Explorer browser page and a Firefox page, and it appears to be more logically laid out in both with the extra two or three ≤br≥'s in there. Now the citations that I separated out, this is an editorial choice, and please notice that by separating out the footnote type citations, those returns do not show up in the article, and it makes editing the article easier, as you can more easily know when you are reading article text, and when you are reading footnote material. If you want to jumble it all back together again because you find it easier to read when it is jumbled, I suppose that is your choice though. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia of Constantinople image text

The current text for the image states: "The Hagia Sophia of Constantinople, once the greatest cathedral in all of Christendom." What measurement are we using to define the claim that it was "once the greatest"? If there is none this needs to be edited to conform to the verifiability requirement of Wikipedia. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CAPS

RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe others understand this immediately. I did not. I take it that you are suggesting that a request be made to move "Christian Church" to "Christian church", as the title of the article. Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Apologies for being cryptic. Though it isn't black and white, I just did this search and there are some second C capitalisations in normal inline text. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Anglicans

I'm not convinced by the statement that "The opposing position taken by the Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church is that the Church is very much essential (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)."

That is the position of Constantinople and Rome, but not Canterbury. Every priest of the Church of England on ordination declares that "the Scriptures contain everything necessary for salvation". No doubt the Oxford Movement had a unique view on the matter in its day, but does anyone have any citation to back the statement up in relation to Anglican Churches?

Howard Alexander (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572657_6/Orthodox_Church.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013191715/http://calacademy.org:80/research/anthropology/coptic/Copthist.htm to http://www.calacademy.org/research/anthropology/coptic/Copthist.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813100622/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317235459/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572657_6/Orthodox_Church.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150401153744/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

On the term "the Christian Church"

Many Christians (probably the majority of Christians, including Eastern Orthodox, Oriential Orthodox, and Catholics) would object to naming all bodies of Christianity collectively as "the Christian Church". This is because, for them the term "Church" and indeed the term "Christian" have very specific meanings. It's disingenuous not to include their views and objections and only present a Protestant view— especially since their view is not even mentioned in the first paragraph, or explicitly in this article in any discernible place.

I believe the lead is in fact carefully written to avoid expressing an opinion on the exact question here. The RCC does not acknowledge whether, for example, Lutheran congregations are really "churches" (contrary to occasional claims, it also does not assert they are not, it simply finds other terms), but the actual Lutherans are considered, in some sense, to be united to "the Church" by their valid baptism. Note that the lead does not say that the church is "all bodies of Christianity collectively", but "in a universal sense to mean all believers". Tb (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the new sentence which expresses the "kinda sorta" doctrine of some Christians in a balanced NPOV way. Tb (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Much information here could be moved to List of Christian denominations instead as a way around this issue, while this article could deal more exclusively with the term - better WP:NPOV. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1950s/vol_2_no_4_contents/ward.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20040826193258/http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM9a1.html to http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM9a1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572657_6/Orthodox_Church.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calacademy.org/research/anthropology/coptic/Copthist.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013194405/http://opuslibani.org.lb/egliseeng/002/antioch1.html to http://www.opuslibani.org.lb/egliseeng/002/antioch1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915123829/http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/orthodoxchurch.html to http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/orthodoxchurch.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572657_6/Orthodox_Church.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Split in "Church", and "Christian Church"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What do you think about splitting this article into Church, and Christian Church? This would mean keeping most of the contents in Christian Church - much pertaining to the "invisible church" Protestant ecclesiology of Protestantism - and some content moved/copied to Church, dealing more with the term and definition as used throughout Christianity? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this split you proposate seems good. And, I would add, some elements would be better in Church (congregation). --Etienne M (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Church is a disambiguation page, and should not have article content added to it And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It would help to have a better sense of what you plan to split off, and to where. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Church is a DAB page, and should stay that way. Church (building) and church (congregation), the commonest meanings of "church", are distinct. And, don't overlook the surname, the place names, and so on. Narky Blert (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Church should most certainly stay as DAB page. After Christian Church, Church (congregation), Church (building), and Ecclesiology, what else could possibly be left for a plain "Church" article? tahc ^chat 21:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons that have already been stated. Ltwin (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious quantity of inlinks

There's a lot of links that link here that should rather be linked to Christianity, isn't? PPEMES (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism Issue

The linked page preview to the Christian Church page has a vandalized statement that says the following "The Church is a cult, worshiping a fake person just so you know." Which is clearly vandalism. I don't know how to fix it, can someone fix it.

I purged the cache and appears to be fixed now, so I removed the warning info. Indyguy (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Unclear wording

In the article's introduction, it states the following:

In total, ἐκκλησία appears in the New Testament text 114 times, although not every instance is a technical reference to the church. As such it is used for local communities as well as in a universal sense to mean all believers. "Christianity", on the other hand, was first by the Church Father Saint Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108/140 AD).

The last sentence's wording is unclear to me, particularly "Christianity, on the other hand, was first by the Church Father..." What was it the first of, the first time the terminology appeared? Given the context, I can assume that is what was meant, but don't want to make a false assumption. -proxxz ^talk 06:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed Page Move by User:‎Veverve

‎User:‎Veverve, I am going to ask you, from a procedural standpoint, to revert your undiscussed page move and the redirects that have accompanied it, such as this one. The term "Christian Church" means different things to different denominations. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, might see themselves as being synonymous with the term Christian Church while the Church of England might see itself as being part of a wider Christian Church. This article exists to explain those nuances, rather than focus them to one branch of Christianity. I am pinging User:Doug Weller, User:Ltwin, User:Indyguy, and User:Tahc as they regularly help mantain Wikipedia's important articles relating to Christianity. If you still feel differently, you can start a formal page move request and the issue can be addressed that way. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: This page starts by describing its subject as "a Protestant ecclesiological term referring to the church invisible comprising all Christians, used since the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century." It precises that the concept is "in contrast to the one true church applied to a specific concrete Christian institution, a majority Christian ecclesiological position maintained by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East." It is therefore an article only used to describe a Protestant concept (which from what I understand is the foundation for the branch theory). If the article is explains that The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, might see themselves as being synonymous with the term Christian Church while the Church of England might see itself as being part of a wider Christian Church, the definitions from other churches are only used as anecdotes, to provide a contrast, to help understand the concept. It is not an article which concerns the whole Christendom and their understanding of what is the Christian Church or a Christian Church; it is an article about a term used by some Protestants to describe the whole Christendom as a whole Church which would englobe all Protestant denominations, Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

I believe my page move, while bold, is perfectly justified and, dare I say, necessary due to the way the term "Christian Church" was used as a hyperlink which I described earlier. Veverve (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

PS: It seems that already in 2019, @PPEMES: had pointed this problem of people thinking this page was about Christianity in general, and not an article about a specific and precise Protestant concept. Veverve (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The addition of the word "Protestant" to the lede of this article to redefine the scope of this article was made only over a year ago. That, as well as your page move, should be formally discussed since it is controversial. I, for one, feel that this article's scope encompasses all of Christianity, not just Protestant ecclesiology. I will wait and see what others have to say. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 19:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: I found in versions from before the one you gave: "generally used by Protestants" in 2017, and a version using a Methodist website as a source. Moreover, even if the word "Protestant" is removed, the concept is still the same. And the idea that the Church is bigger than a visible, hierarchic church, or that the Church of Christ is an entity which incarnates iself in muliple churches with different dogmas and hierarchies, is indeed a Protestant concept (nothwistanding the exceptions of the baptism of unconscious desire and the subsistit in of the Catholic Church). Therefore, it is normal to state clearly that this concept is Protestant. Veverve (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

In any case, it seems it has been years since this page has been about the general concept of what a Church is in Christianity. I find this situation normal, since there is already Church (congregation), Church (building), and Christian denomination to talk about those general concepts. Veverve (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Another example of the urgency of the problem of this article's former name: "Christian Church" was defined at Local church (disambiguation), before I changed it, as "both a Christian association of people and a place of worship". Nothing to do with the concept of "the church invisible comprising all Christians". Veverve (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of this article should be to describe what the term "Christian Church" means to various Christian traditions, including Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy. Moving this article was a WP:BOLD move given that it is controversial and completely changes the scope of the article. Unfortunately, we haven't heard back from others yet but I will try seeking the opinion of User:Doug Weller, an administrator, again. Thank you for your patience. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: the way I see it, the scope of this article has been defined for at least the past five years - I have not made research into older archives -, and the title was therefore misleading. I changed the misleading title to match the scope of the article. Veverve (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23:, @Omnipaedista:, @Marcocapelle: sorry to bother you, but we are having troubles finding a third party's opinion. Could you provide some feedack on the subject? Veverve (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• It would probably be alright to have an article from a Protestant point of view, but it would/should have far less content than this article. Apart from the lede, the scope of the article is much broader than Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment User:Marcocapelle. I agree that this article's scope is much larger than just Protestantism and should encompass all of Christianity. As I mentioned above, the lede was only altered relatively recently to redefine the scope of the article. With regard to an article that talks about this concept from a Protestant view, there is already the article about the Invisible Church. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 02:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: I told you previously that the scope of the article has been changed at least 5 years ago. I have now done my research.

It seems the current wording of the first paragraph of the summary is due to a change made back in 2012.

In 2013 the summary said "The term Christian Church when used as a proper noun usually refers to the whole Christian religious tradition throughout history." The 2013 wording is very close to the concept the first paragraph is currently (2021) about; it was a Protestant concept already 9 years ago.

Said 2013 wording remained the same in until 2015. Then, in 2015, someone added that it was a Protestant point of view while not changing the first sentence.

Said first sentence remained the same until 2016 when it was changed by merging it with the second sentence to "The Christian Church is a term generally used by Protestants to refer to the whole group of people belonging to the Christian religious tradition throughout history."

The phrase "generally used by Protestants" was then removed in 2017. Then it was added back along with "and some others" a few months later. Then, a few month later, "Christian religious tradition" was replaced with "Christianity" (to which "Christian religious tradition" was already hyperlinked for years), "ecclesiastical" was added, and "and some others" was removed.

Anupam, you made numerous edits in 2018, and apparently the phrase which caused much problems was not a problem to you. Still in 2018, the wording was slightly changed.

2019: "ecclesiological" is removed, then put back. Still in 2019, the sentence is radically changed to "c"Christian Church" is an ecclesiological term generally used by Protestants to refer to the Church invisible, and/or whole group of people belonging to Christianity throughout the history of Christianity." (the typo mistakes was corrected in the following edits). 2019 again, a short description is added, reading: "Term used to refer to the whole worldwide group of people belonging to the Christian religious tradition"; "worldwide" was then removed. Minor change to the first sentence of the summary. Once more 2019, the wording is changed to "Christian Church is a Protestant ecclesiological term referring to the church invisible and/or all Christians throughout the history of Christianity, used since the Protestant reformation in the 16th century." It is then changed to "The Christian Church, also called the holy catholic church, is a Protestant ecclesiological concept of a church invisible comprising all Christians." The phrase was thereafter changed again to say it is not a "Protestant", but a "Christian" concept. One month later, the sentence is changed to "Christian Church is a Protestant ecclesiological term referring to the church invisible comprising all Christians, used since the Protestant reformation in the 16th century."

So, in short, this page has been about a Protestant concept for at least 9 years - and I did not bother going before 2012 -, and the adjective "Protestant" to this concept was not added two, but six years ago. Moreover, it seems the subject of this article as presented in its first sentence has been slowly changing over the years. Veverve (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

While doing my research, I noticed @Editor2020: had edited the page. Maybe he/she can provide some feedback on our current debate. Veverve (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• The history of the page is interesting but it is not going to provide a solution to the problem. The problem is that the current title and the current lede are not in line with the scope of the current entire article.

Step 1 should be to split the article (at least in our imagination) between a cross-denominational article and a Protestant article.

Step 2a should be to discuss if the cross-denominational article should stay, dependent on whether other than Protestant denominations actively use the term.

Step 2b should be to discuss if the Protestant article should stay, or whether it should be merged into Invisible Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: While I agree with you, I think in this plan step 0 would be to look for sources. Is there sources stating that "Christian Church" is the name of the Protestant concept we are talking about? And is there sources to make an article about how some denomination call themselved "the Christian Church" or "a Christian Church"? Veverve (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Marcocapelle, one thing that should be acknowledged, in my view, is that this page move was made boldly without a discussion and should be reverted since there is no consensus for the present title. Either User:Veverve can do that or I can request it at WP:RM/TR. I don't believe an article split is actually necessary since this article neatly covers all of Christianity and for those who want to learn more about the specific Protestant doctrinal position, Invisible Church already exists to delineate it. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 14:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

We still have no source for any use of the expression "Christian Church", be it the Protestant invisible Church one or the cross-denominational one. In 2012, before the change, sources were this and this; however, those definitions seem to fit the Christian denomination article more. In 2010, it was McKim, Donald K. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1996; however, despite using the expression "Christian church" multiple times, the book does not have any entry on the expression "Christian Church" where it should, on p. 47. So, those past references do not help. I feel we should just WP:TNT the article and start anew, with sources clearly defining the scope of the article. Veverve (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: I'd strongly suggest WP:RM#CM as the best way to go. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

‎User:‎Veverve, sorry but I don't know enough about the term to be of any help. Editor2020 (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, thank you for the advice. I will go ahead and request that this article be moved back to its original title at WP:RM#CM. It seems that User:Marcocapelle agrees with me on this point too. I'd like to note that there are other sources that talk about the term "Christian Church" outside a Protestant context, including the website of the Orthodox Church of America. After the article is moved back, I plan to propose a rewrite of the lede. If User:Veverve disagrees with my revision, I will start an RfC to gain community input. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Marcocapelle, please have a look at this revision of the lede and let me know your thoughts. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 04:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• It surely resolves the inconsistency between lede and article that I noted earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)