This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Maybe the best way to cover the Barth debate is to fix up Neo-orthodoxy and use that instead. That way, we could state the opinion of conservative Calvinists in that article (with a link elsewhere), to prevent the problem.
Seems to me that Neo-orthodoxy was born in Reformed circles but is now much broader, so I prefer Barth. (However, I'm also open to trying altogether different [wholly other?] approaches to the template as it now stands.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we somehow neutrally list "alternative", "remonstrant", "non-traditional", "non-confessional" interpretations of Calvin - so that Arminianism, Amyrauldianism, and Barth are listed? — Mark (Mkmcconn) **19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments, rather than being archived, were moved to the discussion pages listed in the FAQ/FHD messagebox at the top of the page, to be preserved for posterity.
-- TimNelson04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me while working on the Huldrych Zwingli article, shouldn't he be under the "Background" category rather than the "Influences"? Calvinism could not have influenced Zwingli considering that he died before Calvinism was spread. But through Bullinger and the Zürich Consensus, Zwingli could have been an important "background" to Calvinism. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is just an ambiguous title. The archive discussion indicates that the members of the "Influences" section are persons/entities that influenced the development of Calvinism in its various forms, rather than those who were influenced by Calvinism. "Influencers" is perhaps more accurate if clunkier, but I think we could rely on context since only the "influencers" meaning makes sense, as you noticed. Can you think of a less ambiguous title? Another approach would be to remove him since the connection is not so much greater than other Reformers such as Bullinger or Vermigili. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah "Influences" as a noun. I guess I understood it as a verb as in "Calvinism influences x". Probably another noun that does not get confused as a verb would be better. "Personalities", "Authorities", "Characters", "Leaders"? Another comment: is the Synod of Dort a "Background"? --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it preferable to use an abstract symbol rather than a depiction of certain figures? If so, is there such an appropriate symbol? Lutherans have the rose, and the Anglican template uses Canterbury Cathedral, for example
Some options that come to mind:
The heart in hand (Calvin's seal)
This version comes from a medallion (disclosure, I uploaded this file)
If one of these really only stood for a subset of the reformed movement, say the Huguenot cross for the Huguenots alone, I don't think we could use it. However, I notice that the Huguenot cross is already in use for the "Calvinism portal", so perhaps it is a valid candidate. Dirkwillems (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burning bush seems pretty widely used compared to the alternatives, for example the Reformed Church of France used it in addition to the Huguenot cross before their merger. The flames in the PC(USA) logo are supposed to be a nod to it. And then of course the Church of Scotland. If you're going to use the Calvin medallion or the arms you might as well use a Calvin portrait, because no one will know what they are without clicking and finding the relationship to Calvin. -- JFHutson (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. I think you're right that the bush is more widely appropriate than these alternatives. The question remains, is it preferable? Dirkwillems (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to the Huguenot cross, but I could see someone saying it's particular to Huguenots. I've never seen it used by associated with anyone but them. I was trying to show that the bush isn't as tied to Presbyterians, but that is probably the main association. I could go either way. The longstanding status of the Huguenot cross on the portal might indicate it's the way to go, but it's also possible people just don't know how to change it or complain about it. -- JFHutson (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly that an abstract image is preferable to the Reformation Wall statues. I prefer the Huguenot cross to the burning bush since the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit and grace which are particularly emphasised in Reformed theology. The only problem is that some Huguenot crosses have a prominent fleur-de-lys as a national symbol of France, so I suggest one in which it's less prominent, e.g. the following.Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had another idea, why don't we use the Huguenot cross and the burning bush to represent the two 'lungs' of the Reformed, the Continental and Presbyterian churches? An example of multiple images in a similar template is Template:Catholic philosophy.
I like the idea. I think it is the best one presented so far. But maybe add more symbols because the Huguenot cross is not repressentative for all Continental Reformed. In places like Italy and southern switzerland the Waldensian candle is more common associated with the reformed and everywhere in the balkans and even in some parts of Eastern Europe (like Ukraine) you have the Reformed Start that speaks "Calvinism" to those people. The caption could be just something before like "Common Reformed symbols: the Huguenot cross, the Presbyterianburning bush, the HungarianStar and the Waldensian candle" without further explinations as to not make it too long.
I think having four symbols makes it far too crowded and the other two are not as recognisable. But actually, I think the Reformation Wall is pretty recognisable and I am not convinced the image needs to change. StAnselm (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is not necessarily recognisability, but whether the image represents Reformed Christianity. The template for Lutheranism uses the Luther rose, the template for Anglican Communion the flag of the Anglican Communion, while the templates for Anglicanism and Catholic Church use their 'mother churches'. The Reformation Wall is not a similarly representative symbol, and virtually no Reformed church would consider it such. On the other hand, many Reformed churches and denominations would use a cross, dove, Presbyterian burning bush or Huguenot cross to identify themselves, and to a lesser extent the Hungarian star and Waldensian candle. So I think we should use one of the distinctively Reformed symbols mentioned in this discussion rather than the monument; if anything, to align with practice of templates for other Christian denominations. Violoncello10104 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Reformation Wall is pretty similar to the "mother churches" in being somewhat representative, while not usually what someone would use as a symbol. I think your argument about no Reformed church considering the wall to be a "representative symbol" works just as well for Canterbury Cathedral and Anglicanism. I've seen the Reformation Wall on the covers of books on the subject, and these are universally considered to be figures at the "source" of the tradition. I think it does as good a job as the other sidebar images, though I could be convinced to use the bush. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
