Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

Global/Truly global

I find some text here counter-intuitive.

Lead: "making Christianity a truly global religion in the twenty-first century." So Christianity wasn't "truly global" before that? Wasn't Christianity reasonably "global" in the 20th (pretty sure they told me that in school), 19th, and even earlier centuries? "Global" will of course mean what the source-author thought it meant.

WP doesn't have an article for global religion, we have world religion and the lead links global religion to World Christianity, which seems to be about C. as world religion.

History_of_Christianity#After_1945 section: "After World War II, Christianity became a global religion..." That 1938 protestant map (in that context, it's a little unfortunate it's protestant only) looks pretty "global" to me though. And if you fill in the non-protestants, it would look even more so.

"Before 1945, about a third of the people in the world were Christians (with about half of those Roman Catholic), and about 80% of all Christians lived in Europe, Russia, and the Americas." That's fairly "global", IMO, and I'm pretty sure there was a Christian or two in Africa (since, like, the start) and Australia even before 1945.

"Christianity's population center shifted east and south, making it a truly global religion." And here we have "truly global" again, the only use of the phrase outside the lead.

Is "truly global" a helpful phrase to include in this article? Should it mention world religion instead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Christianity probably has had a constant presence in Africa, Asia, and Europe since the 1st century. Christianity has had a constant presence in the Americas since the Spanish colonization of the Americas in the late 15th century. Christianity became widely spread in Oceania through missionary activities in the 19th century. Religion in Antarctica has been largerly dominated by Christianity since the 1910s, and churches are the only religious buildings on the entire continent. By the 20th century, Christianity had finished its expansion on every continent. Dimadick (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I wish I could just quote you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I changed a little more:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You rock dude. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Naturally, I am the 11th top editor of this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages

~~ AirshipJungleman29 The first paragraph of this section now has the results of Islamic action before the explanation of what it was. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the "Middle East" is a specific area that does not include Egypt and Armenia, the countries specifically mentioned in the source, so this change is not supported by the sources now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the "Middle East" most certainly including Egypt and occasionally including Armenia, you've compelled me to go and have a look at the sourcing for the two times "the Middle East" is mentioned in the first paragraph of "Early Middle Ages":

• "A vibrant Asian Christianity flourished in the Middle East in the eighth century" it turns out that the previous version was direct plagiarism of the source, Macdonald 2015, and the new version isn't much better. Meanwhile, the second source, Jenkins 2008, does not mention Egypt or Armenia on pages 8 or 9.
• For the other instance ("However, in a series of military campaigns between 632 and 750, the Islamic caliphates conquered much of the Middle East and North Africa"), Barton 2009, p. xvii. does not mention Egypt or Armenia and only mentions any Muslim conquest for half a sentence. Meanwhil, the most Matthews and Platt have to say on the chosen pages is "In contrast, Islam did not appear until the seventh century, when it began a meteoric rise and quickly spread across the Mediterranean world". As a reminder, the original sentence these sources were cited for were "Born in the seventh century, Islamic civilization, in a series of Arabic military campaigns between 632 and 750, and diplomacy, conquered much of Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, North Africa, and Spain." I don't know what's going on here.

So first problem: I don't know what source you were talking about that specifically mentions Egypt and Armenia. Second problem (bigger): text-source integrity. Third problem: there is no explanation of what Islam was, so I don't know why that's a problem too. Please help me understand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

A vibrant Asian Christianity flourished in the Middle East in the eighth century is in fact on page 31 of Macdonald, and it is in the article without quotes. I am thoroughly ashamed of my carelessness. Mea culpa. Also, the citation of the previous sentence (Brown 2008, pages 6-8) somehow got moved. I've moved it back. The rest of it is in Dorfman-Lazarev and Bundy and somehow Bundy is also gone. What a mess, but I think you've cleared it up. Perhaps I will add some Bundy back, would that be okay?

Second problem, I thought the stuff about variety forming Europe was in Herrin. On pages 7, 10 and 90, she speaks of the "particularity" of the West, and Christianity's unity and variety, but the specific claims referred to here are in Rowan Williams not Herrin. Somehow, again, this seems to have gotten lost. Herrin underlines the specifically Western phenomena that set European ‘Christendom’ over against the Byzantine world and early Islam alike — the lack of a single well-defined locus of sovereign power other than the ‘para-state’ of the Church, territorial division, limited and contractual models of authority — and shows with consummate skill how these emerge in the interaction of the new Germanic kingdoms, the papacy and the empire, and how the empire’s structure is itself modified in its confrontation with Islam in such a way that space is left for the former western provinces to find new patterns of power relations and a highly distinctive ideology, fueled by tensions absent from both Byzantium and Islam. He goes on to talk about "the novelty of Western European polity" which altogether made me summarize as I did. But perhaps I understood incorrectly. Perhaps you can convey the essence of the idea better, that East and West developed differently largely because of the absence in one place, and the presence in the other, of a central authority; of the presence of variety instead of forced unity. It seems significant.

I think the stuff on Islam is either Rosenwein or Rousseau if I remember correctly. I will find it. Don't waste your time on it. It's my place to do since I'm the one that put it in there, and I'm the one rasing the question here. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'll be back but it will probably be tomorrow. I'm traveling. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 I made the change on Islam that I was concerned about. If you don't like it feel free to revert without argument.

At first, I didn't like the period rearrangement - periodization is heatedly debated amongst scholars who divide it up in several different ways. Then I just decided, we can too! There isn't specifically a source for what we have now, but I don't guess there has to be??

At any rate, I am figuratively bleeding all over from all the deletions, but I am adjusting to the changes, mostly, eventually concluding they are not only good, but that I actually like them. Shudder, sigh. I can see that you are working hard and accomplishing a great deal. When I ask questions or "kick against the goads" a bit, it isn't because I am ungrateful or unadmiring of you. I remain in awe. I see that all of that could be said more simply: thank you.

How about that Carlstak showing up and doing so much good work too? Remsense and my old friend Gråbergs Gråa Sång have also shown up. This community effort just about makes me cry with gratitude. I am so thankful for you all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention, Jenhawk777. For just a millisecond I wondered whose gonads you were kicking.;-) Carlstak (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Aching, aching, I tell you! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In the Early Middle Ages, it mentions consecrated kingship. Should I add that Charlemagne was the first to be crowned by a Pope in that rite? Is that too political? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I know the answer. I hope you are over all the aching I have given you and are having nice night out. I am having a nice day at home where I am not doing any quoting. Happy New Year! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Religion scholars use odd and obscure quotes - but you may be closer to the mark than I! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "In both East and West" is very reliant on a single source. Sentences like " a symbiotic relationship existed between church institutions and civil governments connecting Canon law and secular law" are also pretty meaningless. There may be a meaning intended, but none is apparent currently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 I am so sorry! I did not see this comment until today. The paragraph has now been redone, and an additional source has been added. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Eastern empire in lead

@Jenhawk777, the present wording concerning the early medieval Byzantines is deeply uninformative and essentially takes up its valuable space, and if there's a factual error there, I cannot figure out what it is. "The Eastern Empire became the Byzantine Empire" is, strictly speaking, deeply misleading, and arguably downright erroneous itself.Remsense ‥ 论 05:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

(Also, I am aware the need for concision here, but am presently confused if I did not do well enough here, as your edit made each of the following paragraphs longer.) Remsense ‥ 论 05:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Rosenwein, [2] on page 39: In the seventh century, the Eastern Roman Empire was so transformed that by convention historians call it something new, the 'Byzantine Empire', from the Old Greek name for Constantinople: Byzantium. ... War, first with the Sasanid Persians, then with the Arabs, was the major transforming agent. The Formation of Christendom, a Princeton Classic by Judith Herrin, says the same, that Byzantium didn't really become Byzantium until the seventh century but she takes an entire book to do it.

If you check out the diff [3] you will see that I subtracted 39 words.

I don't mean to offend. I'm getting antsy waiting on User talk:AirshipJungleman29 to finish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not offended in the slightest, I likewise hope my previous impatience, which I again apologize for, doesn't put you into worry. That is not the same thing as what you wrote: there is quite a different implication of "A was transformed by X, to become B" and "B is the term for A after it was transformed by X." Your phrasing makes it sound like a more total material transformation than a convention of periodization, which is how the source quoted characterizes it. Remsense ‥ 论 06:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Then go ahead and restate it as you see fit. If it is representative of what the sources say, I will have no problem with it. The previous edit referred to the Byzantine empire before the period described as the beginning of the Byzantine empire. My understanding of the sources is that "A was indeed transformed by the ongoing experience of X, to become B". Herrin discusses it at some length as an actual transformation into an independent polity between 600 and 750 - along with Islamic civilization and the beginnings of Germanic Europe in the same period. Even if it is just a convention for historians, it is convention that "B.E." wasn't used till later. They referred to themselves as Romans. Our article Byzantine Empire says there is no agreement on a date for its beginning. I'm okay going with that - though I don't have a source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I will be arriving shortly; I must drive through Remsense's current FAC though, as I have promised—and that has an explicit time limit. Too many candles, too little time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

On that note, @Jenhawk777, if there's any particular points you'd like another set of eyes on, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 22:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Remsense ‥ 论 Would you be willing to find and add some content on the Renaissance popes of the Late Middle Ages? They are the popes who renovated Rome, built the Vatican, and were known for their lavish lifestyle and corruption. I used that term previously when I had them in the text and upset one reviewer enough to not only give me a negative review but to become overwhelmingly negative about everything I wrote thereafter. Excluding them is a glaring absence, but I can't figure out how to include them without using the term that upset him so much. I suppose their nepotism, their kids and mistresses, etc. could just be mentioned, but that's a lot of detail just to avoid one word. What to do? If you could help with that, some consensus of some kind would carry some weight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You couldn't really have given me a better assignment, because I'm fascinated by that period. Am working on it as we speak. Remsense ‥ 论 01:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! And bless you!! I am genuinely grateful. I also have a question about your comment below. Go there! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Bless you as well for your kindness regarding my being unjustifiably moody and kneejerk during this process. Remsense ‥ 论 04:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ha ha! That's me on a good day... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Remsense ‥ 论. Thank you! Thank you! I just saw all the work you did today. I am especially grateful for the techy-technical stuff - I suck at that!! Having a friend who is good at what I am bad at is a great gift! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

lead sentences

Thi We apparently don't remember that discussion the same way. As things stand now, it is glaring that nothing at all is mentioned from that period in the lead. The sentence Christianity influenced the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, and Abolitionism on three continents. is an accurate and representative statement. Please demonstrate that your removal is justified by showing it does not represent source material. Bring sources, please, not opinions. Otherwise, let's take this to admin.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Everything can be sourced by source material, the question is how representative it is. The lead section is a general summary, it must represent the general view, the general summaries. The sentence suggests that all the good things exist due the Christian influence and ignores other aspects. It highlights part of the general history, the American revolution, and at the same time ignores all the other revolutions (which faced the Christian opposition). Britannica: "In alliance with the spirit of the Enlightenment, the so-called ′democratic′ revolutions of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries aided this process of undermining Christianity. Roman Catholicism in France, Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia, and Protestantism in former European colonies in Africa and Asia were identified—by their enemies if not also by themselves—as part of the ancien régime and were nearly swept away with it." "The age of the revolutions—political, economic, technological, intellectual—was an age of crisis for Christianity."" [So "Christianity influenced the Industrial Revolution" is too simplistic.] The sentence credits the whole Christianity as a source of abolitionism, but in the article body only some Christians are said to participated in the slavery ("there had been Christians in Europe and North America who participated in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.") The Lausanne Movement: "However, with the advent of the humanism of the 15th century, followed by the Enlightenment movement of the 17th and 18th centuries, and especially with the industrial revolution of the 19th century, the influence of the churches of the West decreased in many aspects of public life. -- Today, Christianity is being viewed in the South as an alienating Western religion. -- First, the historical legacy of slavery, which led to the ‘inferiorization’ of the souls of Blacks. Second, colonialism, which attacked the languages of the ‘barbarians’. Third, Christianization, which did not honor the culture of the colonized and destroyed the little that remained of their traditional heritage." [4]

Let's see for example Britannica's section History of Christianity: Christianity from the 16th to the 21st century: "During the formative period of modern Western history, roughly from the beginning of the 16th to the middle of the 18th century, Christianity participated in many of the movements of cultural and political expansion. [American revolution is just a detail outside the general scope.] The explorers of the New World were followed closely by missionaries—that is, when the two were not in fact identical. [the role of missionaries is stated in the lead section.] [If you want, the lead section can include something like "Christian thinkers were influential in politics, philosophy, economical thought and science."] -- In alliance with the spirit of the Enlightenment, the so-called “democratic” revolutions of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries aided this process of undermining Christianity. Roman Catholicism in France, Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia, and Protestantism in former European colonies in Africa and Asia were identified—by their enemies if not also by themselves—as part of the ancien régime and were nearly swept away with it. -- The age of the revolutions—political, economic, technological, intellectual—was an age of crisis for Christianity. [In my view, this can be covered by the sentence "Christianity faced many challenges" which is currently in the lead.] -- The 19th century was called the great century in the history of Christian missions, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. [this is reflected accurately in the lead section] -- The 20th century saw additional challenges to the Christian cause in the form of totalitarianism, of resurgent world religions, and of indifference. Both the relation of church and state and the missionary program of the churches thus demanded reconsideration." [this is the scope of the last chapter in the lead] --Thi (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thi This: The sentence suggests that all the good things exist due the Christian influence and ignores other aspects. is patent nonsense. There is no such thing as a discussion of "all good things". That's meaningless. You yourself say It highlights part of the general history,... which is correct, but then goes on to make another false claim: at the same time ignores all the other revolutions (which faced the Christian opposition). What would those be? You discuss the Enlightenment - which is in the article - and if you think that is inadequate, then add to it, but don't claim it isn't there.

Christianity influenced the Industrial Revolution" is too simplistic. it's detailed in the text. A simple statement is sufficient for the lead.

The sentence credits the whole Christianity as a source of abolitionism, no, it doesn't, but feel free to add a "some" in there if you think it's needed. Really, "some parts of Christianity" is an applicable restriction to every single statement about it in the entire article, because it has never been uniform, but that would be a tedious writing style and unnecessary because it's implied. Because no one makes claims for 100% of Christianity about anything. It has never been that unified. But the slavery section refers to Christian ideology which is less varied.

If you want to add the Laussanne movement in the After WWII section feel free, but it doesn't belong in the lead.

Nothing in your last paragraph seems applicable.

In all this wall of text there is no good quality source that contradicts what is said in the sentence you dislike. Get a source that isn't another encyclopedia; make a statement that satisfies you. Do the work, don't just remove the work of others because you don't like it. How would you say it? Because something needs to be said about a period omitted right now just to suit you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I have provided sources, clarified the historical context, and suggested sentences in case you need more, the current version provides everything needed on topic of history of Christianity, the religion. If you must tell the history of Christianity in four paragraphs, the American revolution just is'nt part of it. According to any expert, it is not part of the big picture, the summary of the topic, you just particularly like that detail, and it makes the small section misleading. --Thi (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

What? The founding of America is not part of the big picture? Clearly we are never going to agree. Let's call for a Third opinion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

In no way, shape or form is this the event one plucks out from the Christianization of the New World. America was already a Christian continent by the 1770s, and I'm afraid this reads like civic mythology affecting the assessment of due weight.Remsense ‥ 论 03:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The single mention of America revolution in the body is in the section on the 1770's. Verbal battles over the (revival) movement raged at both the congregational and denominational levels creating divisions which became 'Parties', which turned political and eventually led to critical support for the American Revolution. That's the entire content - one sentence - so how is that not due weight? In what way is that civic mythology? I will hold off on posting the third opinion till hearing back from you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am skeptical, I suppose. I was overly strong, but I am on the fence. Remsense ‥ 论 04:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please explain. I value your opinion. Skeptical about what exactly? On which fence? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to think about it, because I've re-re-read the section in question and realized I've been too cavalier in my position once again, because a few surrounding things I thought were not there actually are, which makes the weighting far more reasonable to me. Some day, I will learn. Thank you very much and apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 04:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem! We all skim, which makes it easy to miss things - and let's face it, this article is long and involved and easy to get lost in. So, what does this mean you actually think about the sentences in question? Should I go ahead with the request for a third opinion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This I can only restate: Get a source - a good quality source - that isn't another encyclopedia. Make a statement that satisfies you, that reflects those sources and body content, and add it right in there. You can. Be bold! Do the work, don't just remove the work of others. How would you say what you think needs saying - without dragging on? Because something needs to be said about a period that is completely omitted right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Thi and Jenhawk777 need help resolving a content dispute over a summary sentence in the lead that says: Christianity influenced the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, and Abolitionism on three continents. Thi removed it saying, "The sentence suggests that all the good things exist due the Christian influence and ignores other aspects." The sentence doesn't say whether that influence was "good" or not. It just says it was an influence. Removing the sentence is problematic since that leaves the lead with nothing at all on an entire period. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This has not actually been posted yet, I stopped when Remsense responded above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A request has now been posted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm here from 3OR. Ok, I've taken a look through the back and forth and the discussion seems to revolve around whether or not the removed sentence constitutes a WP:NPOV violation by implying that "all the good things exist due the Christian influence and ignores other aspects." I've reread it a couple of times now and I don't see that that is the implication. The sentence is pretty neutrally phrased and seems warranted given the article's discussion of Christianity's impact on multiple aspects of the topics covered.

The major policy guideline for this Lead section is WP:LEAD with the key guidance being that the Lead is a summary of the article's contents and highpoints. That the statements made in the removed sentenced are in the body of the article and sourced seemed to be agreed to by all parties. That they represent significant context in the article also seems relatively uncontroversial.

There is some discussion on whether the sentence should have more nuance. Perhaps, but please see WP:LEAD again and note that this is meant to be a very short section with very condensed summaries of the body and its relevant context to the reader. If the reader has interest in additional nuance, that is what the body of the article is for.

To the extent there should be additional topics or relevant context added, I would suggest someone post some suggested language to start a dialogue.

Squatch347 (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Squatch347 Thank you for a thorough, well-reasoned and fair response. I am grateful for WP's community that shows up when needed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)