Talk:Black church

Image

How is "Worshipers at Holy Angel Catholic Church on the South Side of Chicago, 1973, by John H. White" relevant to this page? The Catholic church is NOT a "black church" and is not listed anywhere else...-Semisomna (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Black church includes churches from many different Christian groups, including Catholicism. Holy Angels, as a predominantly-Black Church (and one of particular importance in the history of Black Catholicism and therefore Black American Christianity), is certainly relevant to this article. natemup (talk)

Expansion

Wow, this could really do with an expansion.--Pharos 09:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to work on it a bit. However I'm not a member of a black church. I'm also white, but that's not necessarily relevant. I know a white woman who is very active in a Pentecostal "black church." I'd considered writing a bit on non-blacks in the black church, there are several whites raised in the African Methodist Episcopal Church because their parents joined during the 1960s Civil Rights movement, but I worry that could sound offensive if done wrong.--T. Anthony 08:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a bunch of content in the African American Culture article that was really offtopic for that article but is perfect for this one. I just moved it all over. Problem is that it really needs cleanup and is greatly unreferenced. Also don't feel like you have to be Black to contribute to these pages. That's how we end up with POV issues. Personally, I feel like a section on Non-Blacks in the Black church would be a good section as long as you can find references for it. CJ 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I've done quite a bit of work on the history section but it still needs work in the following areas:

Thanks CJ 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You did a good job. When I first came to this article it was just a sentence or two. I tried to expand it, but I wasn't satisfied with my efforts. This is much better.--T. Anthony 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

references

Currently there is only one section which remains unrefernced. That is the "National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc" section.--Sefringle 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. CJ 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is studded with requests for citations, but I don't think every sentence of every paragraph needs a source. Often paragraphs may be based on one source.--Parkwells (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold

There are a few sentences starting with "Because" or "But". Bad grammar, but overall the article is fine. Alientraveller 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and cleaned up the grammar some. CJ 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes (mostly adding internal links), but the article looks great to me. BTW, it would be great if we had a wiki article on "racial uplift". I wanted to create an internal link on that term, but that article doesn't exist. I think the concept started with Booker T. Washington (maybe), and different understandings of this concept led to divisions in the National Baptist Convention in the 1950s and 60s, resulting in the splitting off of the Progressive National Baptist Convention. Speaking of which, would it be appropriate in the current article to mention this divergence in thinking among Black church leadership in the 1960s? Some Black ministers were not in favor of the outspoken, activist push for civil rights, while other ministers thought it was a travesty not to speak out and act out in protest of civil rights abuses. This might warrant a paragraph in the article. This article is just about ready for FA I think! Timotheos 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get the social issues section expanded, especially with regard to some of the differences of opinion during the Civil Rights era. But it's difficult to find reliable sources because everything is so embellished. But if we can find the sources for it then yes it would definitly be warranted. There are also some theological differences that should also be expanded upon. Provided sources for them can be located. CJ 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another online source that appears to be fairly NPOV and academic. [1] There might be something here you can use on the differences in attitudes re. social activism. Timotheos 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. CJ 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Black church SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality	A	A	A	A
Neutrality	A	A	A	A
Writing		B	B	B
Sources		B	B	B
Citations	A	A	A	A

The only problems I find are only 13 footnotes and some sections completely made of short sentences. There seems to be areas where information could be sewn together. For example, in the two sentences, "The first of these churches was the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Richard Allen was a former slave and an influential deacon and elder at the integrated and affluent St. George's Methodist Church in Philadelphia.", it is not immediately clear to me what the connection between the two is. But overall it seems to be a good article. Some else should pass the final judgement.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding your concerns. I can add more sources, but is it really necessary to provide redundant sources? Also, where prose is concerned. Your example was you don't get how sentences tie together. The very next sentence shows that. "In 1787, Allen founded the all-Black Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church after St. George's white members, increasingly uncomfortable with the large number of Blacks the charismatic Allen had attracted to the church, began relegating Black worshipers to the church balcony." Maybe I'm missing the point. CJ 15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Passed. Alientraveller 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope - African American churches?

It looks like this article is really about African-AMERICAN churches, not churches in Africa, for example. If that's the case, wouldn't it be a good idea to indicate this in the first sentence? Maybe if we said "...that minister to African-American communities" (instead of "Black communities), that would be clearer for non-U.S. readers. Make sense? Timotheos 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the opening sentence to clarify that it is talking about Black-Americans/African-Americans. CJ 10:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about black churches in the UK as well, we do have them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.9.86 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be more information on the influence of "black churches" starting with the introduction of Christianity and other religions in the earliest centuries and in Africa. I also agree with the statement above. If the article is going to be African-American based than that should definitely be stated and cleared in the introduction. The website below can add some more background information of the start of religion coming into contact with African societies.

"Africans and African descendents working in the early modern Atlantic commercial system were exposed to the world of European Christianity as early as the fifteenth century, when Portuguese missionaries came to the coasts of Africa."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/religion/history.html

Which denomination is the biggest?

There seems to be some editing & reversion regarding which Black denomination is the largest in the U.S. Both NBC-USA and COGIC claim about 6 million members. Both denominations' statistics are approximations and are dated, so it's hard to determine which one is the "largest." Perhaps we should stick with "one of the largest Black denominations" wording for each of them, until a reliable, dispassionate source can be cited. Timotheos 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that both claim to be the largest. But, the statistic is currently documented with an independent source. I'm looking for scientific stastical studies that are more reliable.CJ 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(16 years later) Why don't we create an article (or section) listing the largest predominantly African American Christian denominations? I wasn't able to find this basic information in a chart anywhere on Wikipedia. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting notes

Hi CJ. In copyediting the History section, it's possible I may have unintentionally altered your intended meaning here and there. If you find any such instances, please revert them or fix them. What you have here is interesting and worthwhile and seems generally well-supported. The short section on Politics and social issues is perhaps an exception. It could be expanded, I think, and probably should be. Just from general knowledge of the world, I'm guessing that divisions must exist within the Black church about social issues and moral issues. Your single example of a moral issue, homosexuality, suggests that moral issues in the Black church are focused on sex. This implication is probably unintentional and stems from your use of only the one example. Have Black churches (and White churches, for that matter) decided that social issues such as racial discrimination, voting rights, and poverty are not moral issues? Finetooth 19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Depth of discussionn

The article could be improved by more depth in discussion of how enslaved Africans dealt with religious traditions, especially as there were markedly different conditions in different colonies in the 18th c. Blacks didn't establish their own churches only in reaction to white actions or racial discrimination. When they were freed, many wanted to withdraw and consolidate within their own communities, including establishing their own churches. I've just been reading about this, but now have to find out where. Also the black churches had a much stronger role in the Civil Rights Movement than is touched on here.--Parkwells 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from intro

I've removed the following paragraph from the article's introduction, because it seemed tangential to the subject of the Black church:

Because of Christian churches' complicated relationship with slavery, when ministers in the South tried to use religion to keep slaves "in their places", some question whether African Americans should continue with Christianity. Many African-Americans are turning to spiritual systems and religions including Orisha, etc, which preceded the American religious movements.

This may be true, but I don't think it's central enough to the subject to be included in the article's lede. A discussion of the criticisms of the black church from the likes of Malcolm X would, of course, be appropriate, as would a mention of the response of black liberation theology. Heck, W.E.B. Du Bois was critical of aspects of the Black church in The Souls of Black Folk, which I'd think was more relevant to the history of the Black church than a modern-day return to Orisha. (Honestly, I'd think that more African-Americans have turned to Islam than to Orisha in the past fifty years, although I have no data to support this hunch.) Anyway, saying that "some question whether African Americans should continue with Christianity" without giving any more context or noting the response of the Black church to this challenge is a violation of the NPOV policy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Is Black church an offensive name?

Some African Americans would be offended by the title. Should the page be moved to "African American church" or "African church"? Please respond on my talk page. If not, why not? The Piano Man (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussions about the article are supposed to be on this talk page. This deals with churches of African American congregations in the United States, who have developed a unique tradition of Christianity. I don't know who started the article, but "black church" has been a common term within the community. Some people may object to any title.--Parkwells (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK; sounds good.

The Piano Man (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs more on roles of women

Women, especially in the Holiness movement, challenged male leaders insistence on institution building. Although some became preachers, they were not encouraged in independent roles. It's an interesting and complex aspect of the 19th c. growth of the church, as the women challenged male leadership when the church was especially trying to build it up. Deserves more treatment here.--Parkwells (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Typically are very conservative" with regards to gay and lesbian issues?

I question how appropriate it is to say that Black churches are "very conservative" regarding gender issues. The article cited (reference 24) certainly doesn't say that. I may be splitting hairs, but I think "conservative" is justified, but not "very," because I haven't seen a source quantifying how much less likely African American Christians are to support gay rights than white Christians, especially if similar denominations are factored in. There's a lot you can say about Black churches and gay and lesbian issues--the article cited points out, for instance, that support for gay rights has declined since 2000, while support among other groups has risen. That's certainly significant. But in recent elections, Europe has moved to the right, and the US to the left; that doesn't make Europe more rightist-governed than the US. 40% support in 2004 for equal rights for gays and lesbians is reasonably high among Black churchgoers; I wouldn't be surprised if that was higher than the white average, weighted by denomination, at least, in the same year.69.94.192.147 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

2009.... see, no one wants to talk about this. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Black church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Notified: Parkwells (talk · contribs), Crownjewel82 (talk · contribs), Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Delisted--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As part of the GA Sweeps, I am placing this article on hold. It does not meet the current standard of citation and I almost delisted it without a discussion period. It often has entire paragraphs without any citation and has numerous {{fact}} tags. This is inexcusable for a WP:GA. I hope this can be corrected in a week or so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see the effort on this article, but my concerns are not being addressed--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

Homophobia

...needs to be its own section in this article. You know it, I know it. Stop pretending. "Same-sex marriage and other LGBT issues have been among the leading causes for activism in black churches.[28]" You mean activism AGAINST? Because the way the article is written now the wording is ambiguous (read: piss-poor). --98.246.156.76 (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121131156/http://www.observer.com:80/2007/charter-lawsuit to http://www.observer.com/2007/charter-lawsuit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019021534/http://www.library.vcu.edu/jbc/speccoll/vbha/gillmin.html to http://www.library.vcu.edu/jbc/speccoll/vbha/gillmin.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325005805/http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm to http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109055932/http://www.intiman.org/2007season/nativity.html to http://www.intiman.org/2007season/nativity.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009075118/http://www.ncaaa.org/nativity.html to http://www.ncaaa.org/nativity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Black Church (African American) → Black church – Disambiguation unnecessary: no other articles by this name; also caps do not appear necessary. Elizium23 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There are two other pages that have it in their lead title section, and you will nary find a reference to the "Black Church" (the Christian group, not a congregation) that doesn't capitalize both words. https://ggle.io/3jdr

Same with "Black Catholics" on the segregation page you changed, but I didn't protest there since you seem to be somewhat pedantic about this. natemup (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Natemup, on the contrary, I found quite a few references in just the first page. They capitalize "Black Church" in their headlines, but not in the body of the articles.

1. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/godinamerica-black-church/
2. https://www.learningtogive.org/resources/philanthropy-and-black-church
3. https://urbanfaith.com/2018/12/7-revealing-reasons-black-church-lacks-influence-community.html/
4. https://religionandpolitics.org/2012/06/07/the-myth-of-the-black-church/
5. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Divided_Mind_of_the_Black_Church/i9baDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22black+church%22&printsec=frontcover Elizium23 (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the quest for references here is largely a red herring. WP:NCCAPS applies; this isn't a proper name, this isn't a specific institution, "church" is being used in its generic sense here, and there is no "override" for usage in WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure how it's not a proper name. It's not a legal institution, but it's a national institution nevertheless, which is why is has a Wikipedia page. But I'll concede that capitalization is not universal. I'm sure you found some that do capitalize it, which would seem to indicate it is a proper name. The use of the term "church" to refer to something other than an actual congregation or denomination is quite unique, so it's not generic and I don't know that it has a precedent.natemup (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalization

The article's title is currently "Black church". In the first sentence it's "Black Church". Would someone please fix this. Offhand, I don't know which is better. deisenbe (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried; @Valereee: accused me of vandalism. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Where did I do that? —valereee (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"General note: unconstructive editing". This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I do unconstructive non-vandalistic things with some regularity. --JBL (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: why are you enforcing inequity and inconsistency? 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)