Template talk:Evangelicalism in the United States

"Forms"

@P-Makoto: in what sense are those "Forms"? Isn't forms covered under "Churches"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

By "forms" I meant interdenominational formations. The Black church, fundamentalism, megachurches, holiness movement, etc. are cross-denominational forms of the Protestant experience, i. e. they aren't themselves denominations or particular to certain denominations. They manifest across multiple denominations. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

So its short for "forms of the Protestant experience"? Not sure I see where you're coming from, its new language for me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote it I wasn't thinking it's short for anything. It could be used in the phrase "forms of Protestantism", or in the phrase "Protestant forms"—that is to say, kinds of Protestantism (but not necessarily denominations of Protestantism). This language appears in academic literature, such as in the following examples (bolding added):

• particular Protestant forms which evolved in the Afro-American community, in Gary R. Peck, "Black Radical Consciousness and the Black Christian Experience: Toward a Critical Sociology of Afro-American Religion", Sociological Analysis 43, no. 2 [Summer 1982]: 155–169, here 157
• Many Black preachers have found success in contemporary and mediated forms of Protestantism, in Kelsey Burke, Dawne Moon, and Theresa W. Tobin, "Race and the Religious Possibilities for Sexuality in Conservative Protestantism", in Religion Is Raced: Understanding American Religion in the Twenty-First Century, eds. Grace Yukich and Penny Edgell (New York University Press, 2020), 114–133, here 124
• the emergence of indigenous churches still in the orbit of Calvinism has rarely allowed for experimentation with native forms of Protestantism, in D. G. Hart, "Reformed Theology and Global Christianity: The Cases of South Africa and Korea", in The Oxford Handbook of Reformation Theology, eds. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Oxford University Press, 2020), 171–188
• the forms and grammars of institutional Protestant Christianity, in Alexis Wells-Oghoghomeh, "Engendering Slave Religion: Methodology Beyond the Invisible Institution", Journal of the American Academy of Religion 90, no. 3 (Spring 2022): 579–598, here 583

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thats is the use of forms I'm familiar with... None of those seem to be using it in the way that you are... None of them are using it to describe movements unless I'm missing something (or a concept like the Black Church). Perhaps we just want to rename to "movements" and but Black Church somewhere else? (or even nowhere, it isn't an article purely about Evangelical even if thats not the criteria for inclusion) Megachurches doesn't fit any of those definitions either, but also isn't a movement... I put in culture because it isn't universal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This raised good points. How about this split-up of forms and movements? I haven't found academic literature that describes the Black church as a movement which is why I hesitated to use that term, but if we can decouple Black church from the movements and have a forms section (bible churches, the Black church, megachurches), that leaves the rest free to be categorized as movements. I have boldly introduced that to the template. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which call the Black church a form of experience? Or the other two? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Association of Vineyard Churches

Why doesn't Association of Vineyard Churches belong in this template? Note that being in the Pentecostal family doesn't mean that they are Pentecostal officially. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought placing Association of Vineyard Churches in the Pentecostal family was debatable. I read more about Vineyard and found that T. L. Luhrmann's When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God (Knopf, 2012) categorizes Vineyard with nondenominational churches, so I added Vineyard to that portion of the churches list. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes vineyard is nondenominational, but they separated from Calvary Chapel Association which you will note is in the Pentecostal family in the template. As long as Vineyard is included I have less of an issue with where it goes, would be fine with it under nondenominational (perhaps Calvary Chapel should be there as well?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Calvary Chapel could reasonably fit under nondenominational. T. L. Luhrmann in the same book calls Calvary Chapel nondenominational. Robert D. Woodberry in Social Forces 7, no. 1 (September 1998) also calls both Vineyard and Calvary nondenominational churches. Both do have influences from the charismatic movement yet both have variously eschewed the term, so both being categorized nondenominational in the template seems reasonable. I have moved CCA there. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that all Pentecostals are charismatic, thats not something that makes them different from the rest of the family. It doesn't matter whether they eschew the term, they aren't a reliable source for that sort of thing... Most evangelicals eschew the term. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

All squares are rectangles, but are all rectangles squares? Likewise, Pentecostalism is charismatic, but is all charismata Pentecostal?

I think Luhrmann's academic book and Woodberry's peer-reviewed journal article are reliable sources for describing Vineyard and Calvary Chapel as "nondenominational". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed for now, shall we move onto the other three discussions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I came to the conclusion that engaging with sealioning (or with behavior the manifestation and effects of which resemble such) would be detrimental for the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

So you have no objection to them being added back to the article? I would also note the irony of complaining of sealioning at the end of a productive discussion... We not only agreed that Association of Vineyard Churches belongs in this template, we agreed on where it should go and what else should go there. What is the problem here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This thread (Association of Vineyard Churches) was productive and generative, and I engaged, perceiving there was opportunity to collaboratively improve the project. The other threads are or resemble sealioning. My other objections and the reasons for them remain. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand feeling like one conversation isn't going anywhere fast, but you haven't even touched the other two. I haven't removed any of your additions, you've removed a number of mine... And I've been extremely amenable to your suggestions, you have so far gotten every single thing you wanted in these two content disputes unless I'm missing something. So please do me the courtesy of trying to come to a consensus about the content you have disputed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Faith deconstruction

So if not there where does this "phenomenon within American evangelicalism" go? It has to go somewhere Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The comment that It has to go somewhere (italics added) unnecessarily presupposes necessity. There is no rule that this particular link must be added to this particular navigation box. In addition, I find the advice articulated in this essay about navigation boxes persuasive and useful: The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space and a large template has limited navigation value. This navigation box as developed has already become extensive.

To satisfy interest to adding faith deconstruction to a navigation box, Template:Irreligion may be suitable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

But this isn't a related article, faith deconstruction is a part of Evangelical Protestantism. It occurs within it, not outside it and generally does not result in complete loss of faith (irreligion). Its as much or more a part as anything else here. I don't understand why irreligion would be suitable, its not mentioned on the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how a phenomenon in which people rethink their faith and jettison previously held beliefs, sometimes to the point of no longer identifying as Christians (or as Evangelicals, if they remain Christian) (permanent link) is, in your words, as much or more a part of Evangelicalism in the United States as Evangelical denominations, institutions, etc.

Faith deconstruction may not be presently mentioned in the irreligion article, so it could be left off the template (it's not mandatory for it to be in any particular template, after all). That said, neither American Humanist Association or Letter to a Christian Nation, which appear in the template, are in the irreligion article either. (For that matter, faith deconstruction doesn't appear in Evangelicalism in the United States (permalink, though nor would its inclusion at that page guarantee inclusion in the template; I'm in no rush to add Martin Marty to the template, simply because he's mentioned in the article.) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why there's this insistence that the moment someone leaves a faith they need to no longer be on the template... Template:Islam topics has Ex-Muslim on it after all (also applies to the other thread). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Islam topics template is also, I think, over-extensive (there are over 200 links in that template). A template with too many links becomes less usable, and I think this template currently hovers around an upper limit (maybe a little beyond, actually, as I reflect on the template and what we've added to it recently). Some topics have more direct bearing on a template's theme than others. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

200 is generally considered to be a good number and not too large, too many is when you get close to or over 1,000. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Exvangelical and Post-evangelicalism

Can the logic behind this exclusion be expanded upon? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The uselessness of the template

In the last 20 years "evangelical" became a buzzword that people trow arround and usually have no idea what it means. No, it does not mean conservative, neither in the theological sense nor in the political one the same way mainline doesn't mean liberal. Those two are actually not mutually exclusive. The Methodist Episcopal Church would have been classified as both because:

"Evangelical" refers to a specific movement spawned by the First Great Awakening caracterised by certan beliefs among which is the belief in a necessary born again conversion experience.

"Mainline" has a historical meaning, that is, churches that were the original or the most significant denomination in their particular traditions.

Can someone explain why are there lutheran denominations in this template? Lutheranism does not teach a born again conversion experience. If you see a lutheran denomination using the word "evangelical" (Evangelical Lutheran Synod for example) it is because most of them have german heritage and in german "Evangelische" just means what the english "protestant" means. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is an obvious example of this, i don't think anyone would want to classify it as "evangelical". I know the Association of Religion Data Archives does classify churches as mainline, evangelical and historical black, but this clasification is just wrong and completely subjective. Barumbarumba (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Child evangelism movement

@Hydrangeans: you said "Child evangelism movement is "evangelism" in the "evangelize" i. e. "preach" sense, not "evangelical" sense. The movement and practice extends outside the United States, and it seems to be studied in other forms of Christianity as well"[1] but if you look at the linked article it appears to be evangelical in both senses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; it seems I may have understated the evangelicalness of the child evangelism movement. However, it remains a global movement, not a US movement, as indicated by the evident prominence of, for example, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization from Thailand in the topic. As such it still does not seem to suit this already crowded navigation box. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It was founded in the US by Americans, the majority of its operations are in America. Having an international element wouldn't disqualify it from this template anyways, it just has to have a major US element to be here. The navbox is also not yet crowded, its well under 200. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to think of "less than 200" as the best measure of "not yet crowded". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thats OK, you don't have to be inclined that way. What about the rest of my points? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced about adding child evangelism movement to this footer. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

But you are now aware that something having an international element wouldn't disqualify it from this template? You seemed to be under that mistaken impression before, its in a bunch of the edit summaries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Figures section

@Horse Eye's Back: Per the verifiability policy, the onus is on you to achieve consensus for the content that you have now twice un-reverted. I maintain that it's impractical to have a major figures section because it's impractical to pick and choose from the dozens of important American evangelicals in history without overwhelming the template. I don't deny that the particular list you picked—Aimee Semple McPherson, Billy Graham, Billy Sunday, C. I. Scofield, Charles Grandison Finney, Dwight L. Moody, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Jonathan Edwards—are all very notable. But this doesn't address the impracticality of curating a 'selected' major figures. Why these nine and not others? Why two Grahams? What about Lyman Beecher, William Jennings Bryan, John Eliot, Donald B. Fullerton, Cotton Mather, Eleazar Wheelock. And why pick only one woman? What about Maria Woodworth-Etter, Phoebe Palmer, Hannah Whitall Smith? One could look at Category:American evangelicals and go on—and that's where readers can look to find notable American evangelicals, as it's a format better suited for presenting the large number of notable American evangelicals. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't currate a list, I went through Evangelicalism in the United States and these were the named major figures in the article. I did no independent curration I just trusted that the article itself was more or less NPOV. If you think that those figures are better covered under history thats fine but they belong in the infobox. Also jusy FYI for those high minded words about consensus... You broke WP:4RR[2][3][4][5], the only reason you arent at a noticeboard right now is because I have too much respect for you (I do not want to see you blocked even though you richly deserve it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not themselves necessarily reliable sources; a review of the secondary literature could have us conclude that the exclusion of mention of all sorts of other important figures is a gap and problem in the Evangelicalism in the United States. You haven't addressed the substance of my comment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Its not being used as a source, generally we don't use sources at all in this context. From my perspective the substance of your comment was about curration and percieved edit warring, what do you feel has not yet been addressed? We seem to have talked about how they were picked, why they're due, and your bright-line 3RR violation, what is left? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The onus was and is on you to establish a consensus for inclusion, and you didn't convince me. But the section as you want it is, despite my objections and concerns, still there in the latest version anyway, since by reverting me you didn't give me a chance to self-revert my irresponsible but completely unwitting and accidental violation. Since the content as you want it is in place, I don't know why you're lording it over me after almost a week, and I'm not very interested in continuing this discussion if you're going to write posts that, whatever your intent with them, read like veiled threats against my account. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't drag you to EWN despite the bright line violation, I am doing the opposite of threatening or trying to hurt you. You haven't addressed the substance of my comment unless I'm missing something, I suggested earlier that these figures might make more sense as part of the history section than as a major figures section and that still seems like a potential solution to me. I would also note that if you feel the topic is too broad to fit in the current navbox we can always make a stand-alone navbox for major figures in Evangelical Protestantism with Americans as a subset (I always prefer for conflicts to result in more of wikipedia). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)