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]
A good idea if we can do it neutrally. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:39, 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.
-- TimNelson 04:36, 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]
Here's a version with a transparent background and without the motto JFHutson (talk) 14:32, 12 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]
