Talk:Mainline Protestant

African American Baptist Churches

Since there is a mention of the three main African American Methodist denominations, should there be a mention of the three main African American Baptist denominations: National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, Progressive National Baptist Convention? Is any of the three considered mainline (by the stardands of the Methodist ones)? If any, then the other(s), if any, could be mentioned in the later paragraph of related non-mainline. Coquidragon (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

2 History Sections

There are 2 sections titled "history" that are both good sections that both have different content. I'm not sure whether it would be better to write one section that combines both or to rename them to make it more clear what their content is about. Isaac Lemmen (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Isaac Lemmen, yes this needs to be fixed. The first section isn't really a proper history; it's more like recent demographic trends. I will change the name of this section. Ltwin (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it would be best to spread this content around article as there are already other sections this material can fall into. Ltwin (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

EP Sanders on Liberal Protestantism

@Indyguy has claimed that my quotation of EP Sanders does not support my contention that Liberal Protestantism represents a break from the values of the Historical Jesus. However, the quote is clear that Jesus did not preach the values Liberal mainline churches like the one he was part of preaches.

"I am a liberal, modern, secularized Protestant, brought up in a church dominated by low christology and the social gospel. I am proud of the things that that religious tradition stands for. I am not bold enough, however, to suppose that Jesus came to establish it, or that he died for the sake of its principles." Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate any feedback from other editors. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what "the values of the Historical Jesus" means, and I do not understand why EP Saunders would have to be in the lead of Liberal Christianity. Plus, in Mainline Protestant you wrote that he was "one of the most respected Biblical scholars of the past 50 years"--well, I don't know about that. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"The values" are simply what Jesus preached. I already see that Sander's quote does not need to be in the lead. Silverfish2024 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a little presumptuous to claim to know the values of the historical Jesus. That works better as a meme on social media than in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There is an entire field of research by scholars trying to understand just who the historical Jesus was, and there are already widely agreed upon results. (Crucifixion, Baptism, Apocalypticism, etc.) In this case Sanders contrasts the historical Jesus understood in a scholarly manner with the views many mainline churches espouse. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sanders was extraordinarily influential compared to his peers. He revolutionized multiple fields of study while most scholars only touch their own.

Here is a memorial post by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman on Sanders' impact

A Truly Great New Testament Scholar: E. P. Sanders in Memoriam - The Bart Ehrman Blog Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The quotation itself says nothing about the Historical Jesus, and it seems to be talking about Sander's personal perspective without any indication that it is a generally held idea by others in the field of study. Perhaps he says more about it in his book, but as it stands, the quotation is just not enough. Indyguy (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Sanders only mentions Jesus; however, taken in context, it is clear the subject is equivalent to the historical Jesus and that the quote would not make sense if it were referring to some sort of "theological Christ" that Bible scholars like to claim stands apart from the historical. The quotation is very clear on its own.

Sanders is a highly respected scholar to say the least, so this quote should not be removed whether or not other scholars support it or not (I cannot think of any who would dare say that the Historical Jesus would be in line with mainline Protestantism). There has indeed been backlash against the Protestant influences still present in New Testament studies. Silverfish2024 (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the quote presented by User:Silverfish2024 belongs in the article and moreover, I think that most mainline Protestants would disagree with it. Mainline Protestants would teach that they seek to emulate the values of love and service that Jesus emphasized. Anupam^Talk 23:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, though you may correct me on this, Wikipedia is focused on presenting academic information, not what laypeople claim. I added Sanders's quote because he was a Biblical scholar, not because he was a mainline Protestant. Could you explain why you think the quote does not belong? It seems perfectly relevant, as I have already discussed above. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Silverfish2024, neither the quote nor the claim belongs in the article. E. P. Sanders was a respected biblical scholar, but his personal opinion of whether the historical Jesus would have approved of a particular Christian movement seems too much like Wikipedia is making a value judgment. It doesn't add any value to the article - which is about Mainline Protestantism and not Sanders' personal opinion of it. In addition, citing one scholar to support a pretty major claim is Wikipedia:UNDUE. Ltwin (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am very glad that somebody has clearly explained why my edit might not be ideal for this page and understands Sanders's standing in scholarship and what Sanders was saying in the quote. That being said, I disagree that my edit implies any sort of value judgment, as it is claiming that Liberal theology is not in line with the Historical Jesus, not that is factually incorrect. For comparison, Wikipedia appears to be fine noting that there no scientific evidence for Noah's flood, or that the Pentateuch does not accurately describe the rise of the Israelites. Would this be a value judgment against Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion? I also wouldn't describe the quote quite as just an opinion, because it is placed deep inside an academically inclined publication that has argued historical analysis can and should be done without the "control of theology" as previous scholars have been wont to do. The quote is necessary to show Sanders is researching outside of the bounds of his personal theology. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Silverfish2024, Sanders' qualifications as a New Testament scholar do not qualify him or anyone else from knowing what the historical Jesus would think about modern Christianity. We don't know what Jesus would or would not think about Mainline Protestantism, and it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to essentially say per Sanders that Mainline Protestantism is contrary to the outlook of the historical Jesus. You mention evidence for the flood or the historicity of the Pentateuch. Those are completely different situations. Wikipedia editors rely on the expertise of reliable sources (biblical scholars, historians, and other academics). A scholar using his or her expertise to analyze the historicity of the Pentateuch is perfectly fine. That same scholar opining on whether or not the historical Moses would approve of the modern State of Israel is stepping outside of his area of expertise and no longer serves Wikipedia as a reliable source. Ltwin (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"We don't know what Jesus would or would not think about Mainline Protestantism"

I'm not sure who else would agree. Is there any source saying scholars cannot draw conclusions about the views, real or hypothetical, about historical figures? Wikipedia argues that many messianic prophecies could not be discussing Jesus (in a literal manner) in its original context per various scholars, and this does not seem to be considered out of line, though some might construe this, rightly or wrongly, as another value judgment against Christianity. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Silverfish2024, the fact is any statement that essentially says Mainline Protestantism contradicts Jesus' teachings and values is going to need a whole lot more support than just one biblical scholar and those sources are going to have to be much more explicit than the quote you provided, which could have several different interpretations. Ltwin (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Ltwin. I might consider a new edit at some later point, perhaps by adding more scholars and shifting the focus to a discussion on the pivotal role of Liberal Protestantism in the founding of critical historical research in 19th Century Germany, as well as modern reception, if I can find good sources. Silverfish2024 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) being Mainline

I am a theology nerd and, based on the patterns I've seen among the Mainline churches, the CDC doesn't qualify as a Mainline denomination. It has no creeds or confessions, is restorationist, and should be grouped with more Evangelical or Restorationist churches like Pentecostals, Nazarenes, the Holiness movement, Churches of Christ, etc. I think we should remove the CDC from the list of Mainline churches, and instead replace it with the Reformed Church in America, if we replace it at all. What are your thoughts on this? The Based Baptist YT (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. I believe that including the CDC has been fairly standard and is supported by appropriate citations. In any event, reliable sources would need to be cited that they should not be included; otherwise it's just your personal opinion. Indyguy (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Should the African American Methodist and Baptist churches be considered Mainline?

They pretty much meet all the standards for Mainline such as Historic Protestantism, Non-schismatic, and they have some liberal influence in them as well. They're the Historic Black churches especially in the South and parts of the Northern United States. The Based Baptist YT (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree, the NBC should be considered mainline, and arguably the NBCA and PNBC. They, however, split from the NBC so have a weaker claim to be "mainline", however, I see that Alliance of Baptists and the CBF are "mainline" even if they have no historical or numerical claim to the title. Generaly they are considered "historically black churches" in most statistics, but if we find a source that cites them as mainline we can say "Some historical black churches have also been considered mainline" and then list them. Barumbarumba (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That should currently already be in the article. The Christian Century considers several African American-majority denominations to "match the mainline description." I believe that is still included in the article. I think it could be expanded upon though. SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

ARDA update

@Barumbarumba, The Based Baptist YT, and SeminarianJohn: ARDA lists quite a few new denominations, especially anglo-catholic & continuing anglican groups. Braganza (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This is so wrong, I've never been more disapointed in an institution. They seem to clasify every denomination in the Continuing Anglican movement as mainline exept for maybe the only one in that tradition that might have some claim to the title. Not to mention that they have the Diocese of the Holy Cross in there, which is defunct after merging with ACC. Barumbarumba (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree, they also list quite a few of them as "None/Unknown" for some reason. Braganza (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that that is probably not the most accurate; I do think that it is incumbent on editors like ourselves to include definitions from ARDA, but that can be balanced by noting that other reputable organizations use different definitions. Thank you for bringing this up and for including me as well. I appreciate the opportunity to help. SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

ARDA gets a lot wrong. They list Quakers, Restorationists, and whatever the "Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches" is as Mainline. I think we should stick with a simple 6-church definition of Mainline Protestant as being the Historic Protestant groups such as:

• American Baptists (ABCUSA)
• United Methodists (UMC)
• Episcopal Anglicans (TEC)
• Presbyterians (PCUSA)
• Congregationalists (UCC)
• Evangelical-Lutherans (ELCA)

You may also wanna consider adding in the RCA The Based Baptist YT (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Chart

@Barumbarumba can you please connect the ELCC, ELCA, LELBA & EELC via the Lutheran World Federation Braganza (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It would become too crowded to the point of being too confusing in my opinion. I already had this fear when I drew the cross border anglican-lutheran lines. My intention was to show the ecumenical sentiment most of those churches have beyond their own tradition in North America. I was actually thinking of suggesting removing the reference to the Anglican Communion as it seems to imply that the Moravian church is also part of it and I don't see how you could rearange it to not look that way. The reference itself seems rather superfluous. First of all because it is not a local agreement between TEC and ACC in particular, and second, because it could arguably be expected for two denominations of the same tradition but located in different countries to be in communion with each other. Now, I agree that with the Lutheran World Federation is different because those denominations are all in the same country so it has a better claim to be mentioned. Maybe if we moved all US denominations lower and made a little bit more space we might be able to put EELC and LELBA between ELCA and ELCC in such a way that the whole thing doesn't look overwelming. But in that case I think the Porvoo communion reference becomes irrelevant.

The thing is that drawing new lines from ELCA is tricky and the way you did (from the middle of the line between ELCA and ELCC) doesn't match the pattern of how all others are drawn. I have an idea of how to include them and the LWF reference, but it would require a little bit of restructuring in terms of how all the lines are drawn.

If you give me 2 days I might come up with an example of what I mean. Barumbarumba (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Barumbarumba you can take your time, i was just using your graph as a template for Anglican Communion and ecumenism and this is why i realized it. Braganza (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, nice chart. Barumbarumba (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I made them full lines if they are made by an agreement mentioned in the chart. Agreements between individual denominations are shown with interrupted lines. I am trying to make the full lines have the colour of the agreement they represent.

Mainline denominations' relations of Full communion blue representing US-American churches and red representing Canadian churches
UCC PCC ELCC ACC Waterloo Declaration Anglican Communion MCNA EELC LELBA Lutheran World Federation Churches Beyond Borders CC(DOC) PC(USA) A Formula of Agreement Called to Common Mission UCC ELCA TEC RCA UMC ABCUSA AMEZC CMEC AMEC

Barumbarumba (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This gave me an idea to change the names to the respective involved streams. Braganza (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Barumbarumba will you add this to the article or should i? Braganza (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I will. Barumbarumba (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Mainline denominations' relations of Full communion blue representing US-American churches and red representing Canadian churches
UCC PCC ELCC ACC EELC Porvoo Communion Lutheran World Federation Waterloo Declaration Churches Beyond Borders CC(DOC) LELBA MCNA Anglican Communion PC(USA) A Formula of Agreement Called to Common Mission UCC ELCA TEC RCA UMC ABCUSA AMEZC CMEC AMEC

would this work? Braganza (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)