Talk:Mainline Protestant

Brethren

The page refers, in paragraph 2, to the church of the brethren as mainline, but this is not in the list of mainline denominations at the bottom of the page. Which is correct?

German Anabaptist groups would not be considered mainline, so their exclusion would be correct. GnatFriend (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Seven sisters

A scholarly reference to the use of the term "seven sisters" in reference to mainline protestant churches has been provided in a footnote. The term is also used by conservative author Thomas Reeves in his book The Empty Church, Does Organized Religion Matter Anymore? (1996), using the same list. Again, it is used by Kenneth Woodward in his article "Dead End for the Mainline?", in Newsweek, August 9, 1993. If you are looking for a web reference, try this [1], here [2] or here: [3] --Blainster 16:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Black Mainline question

I have never heard these assertions before... Could someone please provide references if this is true?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bremkus (talk • contribs) 09:15, August 6, 2006 (UTC)

Because this section contained only vague "weasel words", I deleted it. If the contributor can find appropriate references, it could be re-added. --Blainster 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "mainline" refers not only to theological positions, but also to social standing. Given the history of discrimination against African-Americans, historically Black denominations would not be considered mainline on that basis alone. GnatFriend (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Merging in the Seven Sisters page

It seems that most all of the Seven Sisters page information is redundant, and that which is not would be a helpful addition to the Mainline page. Furthermore, the term "Seven Sisters of American Protestantism" is an obscure reference that most people do not know--heck, I just gratuated from seminary and am getting ordained in one of the "Seven Sisters" denominations (UCC) in less than 2 months from now, and I hadn't heard of it. I think a reference on the Mainline page to that grouping is more than appropriate, but a separate page seems redundant. Emerymat 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is reasonable to me, but you might want to leave a note on the talk page of the article creator. --Blainster 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree it looks like an accidental duplicate article --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Should this not be titled "Mainline Protestant"?

There are other uses for "mainline" than just to Protestant Christianity. if no one objects, i'll move the pages soon. r b-j 02:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "mainline" is used as a standalone descriptive word covering some Protestant denominations, so a move to "Mainline (Protestant)" would be more accurate. If you decide to move, don't forget to update its entry at Mainline (disambiguation). --Blainster 19:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm not certain a move is necessary, but if it's done, Mainline Protestant would be perfectly valid as an article title. Powers ^T 15:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing the name to Mainline Protestant makes sense to me. Dawn22 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree: This needs to be moved to Mainline Protestant. Simply Mainline is not at all descriptive, and is highly ambiguous. For some reason unknown to me, it won't move. I hope someone will be successful. Thanks...Afaprof01 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is not a two word phrase. If you read the article you will see that mainline is a standalone descriptor of these particular denominations. "Mainline Protestant" is redundant because there are no mainline Catholic or Orthodox denominations. Therefore if it is renamed, it should be to Mainline (Protestant). --Blainster 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a two-word phrase. It has half a million hits on Google, if you need sources! I defy you to find a source that ever says "mainline" without first stating the context, either by saying "mainline Protestant" in the first instance and then following it up with "mainline" alone, or when evangelical protestantism has already been mentioned so that mainline can be used in counterpoint. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a two word phrase, even if that phrase i s somewhat redundant. It's stupid to have a parenthetical disambiguator when there's no particular reason to. Notice that of t hose who expressed opinions, Rbj, LtPowers, Dawn22, and Afaprof01 all suggested Mainline Protestant, and only Blainster supported Mainline (Protestant), but yet it got moved to the latter. Most irritating. john k 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's always used as a two-word phrase. The parentheses completely change the connotation (suggesting something like 'the mainline that is Protestant'). Another vote for Mainline Protestant. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this definition really accurate?

I do not find that this is what my Protestant, Southern Baptist church believes. For instance, we definitely believe that the only way to God the Father is through Jesus the Son. We believe it because He said it. Another example is that we are not open to gay, lesbian, and other forms for this. And, we most certainly do not go for women being ordained. Am I the only one noticing this stuff? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.109 (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

If you carefully read the article, you will see that the Southern Baptist churches are not considered mainline, so yes, the definition is accurate. --Blainster 05:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, however, I think it is pretty clear that this article was sourced, if not written by people who tend toward a negative view of mailine Protestant denominations. This is unfortunate, given the fact that it was these very groups who brought the Christian faith to the shores of the New World, and nurtured it through the first 300 years of European presence here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsquaredrev (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

whether it's the same mainline Protestants who "brought the Christian faith to the shores of the New World" is debatable, since mainline Protestants nowadays don't exactly believe the same things their forefathers did. Fundies, in fact, have a lot more in common with the older Christians.173.75.26.85 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs

The statement "In particular, some mainline Christians do not accept the biblical statement of John 14:6 that Jesus represents the sole legitimate path to God" seems oddly worded to me. Is there a source to back this statement up? My own experience with mainline Christians would lead me to believe that, while they may interpret the text of John 14:6 differently than other Christians, they probably wouldn't outright reject it. I suppose in the strictest sense, there probably is _some_ mainline Christian out there somewhere who does reject John 14:6, but again, a citation would help to make that claim. 12.206.224.138 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, this type of assertion needs to be sourced to make sure it is not just Wikipinion. --Blainster 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian Orthodox?

What's with all the eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches listed here? I can't imagine how these would be considered mainline. john k 04:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest instead of the ARDA list to list the sixteen non-Orthodox, non-Black churches in the National Council of Churches. john k 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than worrying about whether it's mainline or not, Orthodox churches are definitely not Protestant. That makes the whole section moot. GnatFriend (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Confessing Movements

The article currently says "each mainline denomination has within it a Confessing Movement or renewal movement which is more conservative in tone." Given the list of mainline churches that follows, is it accurate to say that they all have Confessing Movements? For example, does the Moravian Church really have a confessing movement? Would it be better to reword that sentence to say "most mainline denominations have within them a Confesssing Movement..."? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm unaware of a confessing movement in the Moravian Church, the real question is, Is the Moravian Church mainline? I would say no. GnatFriend (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV?

I can't see the controversy that would require a POV tag, can someone please point me to the problematic parts of this article? Natebailey (talk)

The clean-up and NPOV banners were added Jan 20, 2009 by User:Mfv2. At that time there were some obvious POV issues reflected in phrases such as: "Few would suggest that the Bible was verbally and plenarily inspired as some biblical inerrantists maintain." I am not sure how respectful that tone really was. There appears to be some tension currently over the tone of the comments about the decline in membership among Mainline churches since 1960. That tone may not reflect a completely NPOV. That said, I think the tone is probably not enough to justify the Banner. There are enough other errors of fact and logic that the Clean-up Banner should probably remain. John Park (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the Assemblies of God?

I am amazed that the Assemblies of God is not included here. (per Wikipedia - the largest Pentecostal Church in the World) Why does being "a ultra conservative denomination" or "Pentecostal" make you non-protestant?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.188.11 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "mainline" today denotes the historical Protestant denominations which are today considered liberal. It does not mean the "majority" or even "mainstream". The Assemblies of God, as a major evangelical denomination is indeed in the mainstream of Protestant Christianity, but it is not "mainline". The term "mainline" today has more to do with history and culture rather than being in the majority. The article makes this clear at the beginning: "those Protestant denominations that comprised the vast majority of American Protestantism in the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s and were the dominant Protestant denominations in the United States". Ltwin (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This definition makes no sense "Mainline" - according to Webster's Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Mainline Mainline and mainstream are the same thing. Which would be the "majority" of protestants, not just some smaller group. Also if this is just a definition of a given time frame... i.e. "1700's, 1800's, and early 1900's" the title should reflect that time line and note that it is only a part of an on-going evolution or process. I would also consider this article biased. I dispute the claim that evangelical and fundamental churches are 'usually' not included as mainline protestantism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.188.11 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not understanding. Mainline in this context does not mean main stream. Mainline Protestantism is a term with a specific meaning which has nothing to do with the size, popularity, or acceptance of a denomination. This is not just a definition used by Wikipedia. See for example the Barna Group definition which leaves out evangelical and Pentecostal churches. A mainline church is a church that shares particular characteristics with other mainline churches. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches do not share those characteristics. This does not mean that mainline churches are mainstream and the others are not. What it means is that mainline churches fit into a category that has been given the name "mainline". The Assemblies of God, to use your example, would be horrified if they were called a mainline church. Why? Because the term "mainline" when used to refer to Christian denominations in the US carries with it an identity which the AG does not possess and would disavow. However, the AG would of course consider itself within the mainstream of Christianity around the world because it is in the mainstream. However, churches like the Episcopal Church in the United States which is mainline, by some in the Christian world would not be considered mainstream because of a percieved liberal agenda. Therefore, the term "mainline" in know way means "mainstream" and in some cases the term could mean the exact opposite of "mainstream". Hope this helps.

I didn't realize that the phrase "also sometimes called mainstream" was in the article. I have requested a citation for this as I've never heard "mainstream" used as a substitute for the mainline denominations, though I could see it being done. However, whether mainline churches are referred to by people as "mainstream" does not change the fact that the term "mainline" does not mean that evangelical and Pentecostal churches are not mainstream. That would not make any sense at all because the PC(USA) is a "mainline" Presbyterian church while the PCA is an "evangelical" Presbyterian church. Same tradition, but one is "mainline" the other "evangelical". Did you read the entire article? It says "While the term 'mainline' once implied a certain numerical majority or dominant presence in mainstream society, that is no longer the case. Both evangelical and fundamentalist Christian groups have been growing, but mainline Christianity—both membership and worship attendance—has been shrinking.[1]" I think the article is pretty clear.

I think you are confusing a term used to categorize denominations with a term which speaks on how large or culturally dominant a particular denomination is. This term does not do that. It is a common and well defined term applied to churches and denominations which have alot in common. Even though the denominations which the term is applied to are no longer numerically dominant, the term has stuck. Sorry if that frustrates you, but Wikipedia does not make these terms. It just writes articles about them. Ltwin (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction to this article is not NPOV. Statements of declining membership should be included under a subheading. Confession0791 (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

it's true and noncontroversial--and it's what all the RS mention prominently, so it definitely belongs. Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. What is not NPOV about this? Also, as the editor who made the change in his comment said, many people think mainline means "majority" and that's just not true any more. Just look at the discussions above us! It's important that readers know that the "mainline Protestant" label does not imply numerical majority. Also, please read Wikipedia guidelines concerning lead sections, which says that:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

The declining membership of the mainline churches is a very important subject to mainline churches. Therefore it has a place in the lead section of an article on mainline churches. Ltwin (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

denominations

I think it's important that some qualifying sentence be included somewhere which includes alongside the litanty of US denominations generally grouped among mainline Protestants some mention that there is often considerable internal diversity within each, including representatives of more evangelical or conservative strands of protestantism (as is the case in the ELCA, Presb (USA), the Episcopal Church, United Methodism, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd123 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Denominations -- with declining numbers?

I'm not convinced we should be showing both the current populations of the Seven followed by some variation of "(down from xxxx in 19xx)". I would connect the inclusion of this data to the present interest in the decline of mainline Protestantism. If this article was about that, then we could include the "down from" data, but it's not. In addition, since most of the citations are from different articles in different years (or decades!), we're offering comparisons between Methodists in the 60s and now vs Lutherans in 2008 to now, and so forth. That data isn't really compatible. Maybe a different subsection is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.10.162 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Mainline

The section on the "Liberal" tradition is not factual, contains weasel words, and is not NPOV. I'm deleting the middle section. Christian Liberalism is based on an interpretation of the teachings of Jesus (e.g. faith, hope and love, the greatest being love). This interpretation has a long history going back to early Christianity and did not grow out of the anti-slavery movement in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robko626 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that a major edit was in order there. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Mainline Protestants as Republicans — Possibly Outdated?

The introduction to the article currently contains this sentence: "Episcopalians and Presbyterian tend to be considerably wealthier[14] are better educated than most other religious groups,[15] and are disproportionately represented in the upper reaches of American business,[16] law and politics, especially the Republican Party.[17]"

The reference for the claim about party affiliation is to a book written in 1964. I'm sure it was accurate at the time, but I'm concerned that it may be outdated. The last 50 years have seen major demographic change, both in religious denominations and party affiliation. Political parties have become more ideologically distinct, and the mainline protestant denominations (at least in the narrative that is often reported) have taken positions on some social/civic issues that diverge from the Republican position. Especially given the emergence of evangelical/fundamentalist/non-mainline Protestantism as both a significant Republican constituency and an increased portion of American religious affiliation, I am very skeptical that it's still true that mainline Protestants are "disproportionately represented in … the Republican Party."

I hope someone can find more recent data and update the article accordingly.

LiberalArtist (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

yes they have changed in last 10 or 30 years. I revised it. Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mainline Protestant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927025143/http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~dml1/wjreviews.html to http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~dml1/wjreviews.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

More liberal than non-mainline?

Is Unitarian_Universalist_Association mainline? If so, it should be mentioned in that lemma, as well as this one. If not, I guess the statement "Politically and theologically, mainline Protestants are more liberal than non-mainline Protestants." in the introduction must be untrue. Pauluzz (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your ideas are WP:OR. tahc ^chat 16:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As I stated them they are. But the phrase "Politically and theologically, mainline Protestants are more liberal than non-mainline Protestants." seems WP:OR to me as well.Pauluzz (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Association of Religion Data Archives Comparison shows a more liberal stance on theological and political issues among unitarians. Furthermore [[4]] clearly puts mainline and nontrinitarian in different categories. Seems enough for me to disqualify the unreferenced notion that mainline is the most liberal group of protestant denominations.Pauluzz (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your ideas are based on the idea that nonTrinitarian groups are a sub-set within Protestantism.

Many (or most) non-Trinitarianist and many (or most) Trinitarianists consider nonTrinitarianism to be outside Protestantism. Of course many (or more) Unitarian Universalists also consider themselves even non-Christian. None-the-less, even if we consider (some) Unitarian Universalists within Protestantism, etc., it is a much much smaller than the Mainline Protestant and Evangelicalism groups-- which is the point of the statement in the article. Furthermore, even if we found many WP:RSs that we agree show that UU is within Protestantism, it would seem to need only a footnote in the article, since it is such small group. tahc ^chat 00:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I see contemporary UU is more Universalist than it is Unitarian Protestant, but non-trinitarian Protestants do exist, e.g. Unitarians. Next to that we could consider other liberal denominations (some in anabaptism, arminianism). Also consider here that mainline Protestantism includes a wide spectrum of Protestants, ranging from conservative protestants to very liberal protestants. The same goes for many Progressive Christians in non-mainline denominations.

I see that the point of the paragraph is to compare the larger groups of denominations, but that doesn't mean mean it should unambiguously state that mainline Protestants are more liberal then non-mainline Protestants, which is simply false. If generalisations are used, it should show from the sentence that this is a generalisation. Pauluzz (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we really be categorizing Protestant denominations in Mexico as "mainline"?

Are there any sources that consider churches like the Anglican Church of Mexico "mainline"? Mainline Protestantism is really a category specific to the US and Canada. In other countries, the religious dynamics are different. For example, in Mexico, the Anglican Church has always been a minority religion. It only has 100,000 members and exists in a country with a majority Roman Catholic population. Historically, in Mexico, Protestantism was never "mainline" at all. Ltwin (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mainline Protestant. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/Project.aspx?ID=850011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106134955/http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/17-leadership/323-report-examines-the-state-of-mainline-protestant-churches to http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/17-leadership/323-report-examines-the-state-of-mainline-protestant-churches

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) 17:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a part about the Supreme Court?

The introduction is already quite large. Why is there a section about the Supreme Court? That doesn't seem very relevant to an article explaining what Mainline Protestantism is. Consider flagging or reviewing this article for bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.111.226 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Excessive US Focus

The whole article is excessively US focussed: the heading and/or introduction should make it clear that this is an article about a term used only within the US church scene, and which refers to the denominations which dominated the non-Roman Catholic side of the US church scene in the 1950s & 1960s. Outside the US the use of this term in this context is pretty well unknown, in most protestant countries the term 'mainline' would probably be taken as referring to all denominations which accept the Apostles' Creed, adding 'Protestant' would exclude the Roman Catholic & Orthodox churches. It is also pretty clear that now (in 2018) the mainline of the US protestant churches is 'Evangelical', with the 'Liberal' and 'Anglo-Catholic*' sections of the 'Mainline Protestant' churches being minority groups no longer on the mainline (on branch lines?). [* UK English term, not sure whether this label is used in the US]. Gliderman (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)) 5 Jan 2018

The very first sentence of the article states "The mainline Protestant churches (also called mainstream Protestant and sometimes oldline Protestant) are a group of Protestant denominations in the United States that contrast in history and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations", which seems to me to pretty directly address all your concerns. The term "Mainline Protestant" is simply a term that has reference to the historical development of Protestantism in the U.S. and doesn't really have much to do with Christianity in the rest of the world. I wouldn't object to adding phrases such as "in the United States" and the like to the introductory sentences of some of the subsections in the body of the article just to make that clearer to anyone reading through the article. (BTW, I'm moving this discussion to the bottom of the talk page so that it will be more visible.) Indyguy (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mainline Protestant. 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/20161008111317/http://mexico-anglican.org/QuienesSomos.html to http://mexico-anglican.org/QuienesSomos.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160524170144/http://rcrc.org/homepage/about/coalition-council/ to http://rcrc.org/homepage/about/coalition-council/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202221428/http://www.pcusa.org/research/reports/denominational_size.pdf to http://www.pcusa.org/research/reports/denominational_size.pdf

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) 10:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Outdated information

"Episcopalians and Presbyterian WASPs tend to be considerably wealthier[122] and better educated than most other religious groups in America,[123] and are disproportionately represented in the upper reaches of American business,[124] law and politics, and for many years were especially dominant in the Republican Party."

Em, this information is not substantiated by any modern sourcing. The sourcing used to support this claim is old, in some cases over 60 years.

First, modern demographers do not consider whether mainline Protestants are "WASPS" or not (the term "WASP" itself is anachronistic). Secondly, these groups are not "considerably wealthier and better educated" than other religious groups, at least not according to Pew Research. See, for example, here.

In the section on Income by Religious Group (% of adults with income of at least $100,000), the order is:

Asian-American Hindu; Jewish; Asian-American unaffiliated; Asian-American mainline Protestant; White Catholic; Asian-American Catholic; Asian-American evangelical prot.; Orthodox Christian; White mainline Protestant; Unaffiliated; Mormon; Asian-American Buddhist; Muslim; White Evangelical Protestant; Black Protestant; Hispanic Catholic.

There are several religious groups which rank higher than white mainline Protestants, including white and Asian Catholics.

In the section on Post-Graduate Education by Religious Group (% of adults with at least some post-graduate education), the order is:

Asian-American Hindu; Jewish; Asian-American unaffiliated; Asian-American evangelical prot.; Asian-American mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Asian-American Catholic; Asian-American Buddhist; White mainline Protestant; White Catholic; Unaffiliated; Mormon; Muslim; White Evangelical Protestant; Black Protestant; Hispanic Catholic.

White mainline Protestants and white Catholics are about even here, while 57% of Asian-American Hindus have post-graduate degrees, compared with 16% for white mainline Protestants. It's not even close.

I'm going to ask editors to provide more contemporary sourcing to support the above statement before removing it. The sources cited are too old, and the claim itself is in conflict with more recent data.Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur. This information is out-of-date. The referenced second source [122] is a NYT article from April 28, 1981. And even that article from 1981 did not use the term WASP; it seems to have been added to cement the editor's summation. It is an inaccurate term, elitist, and also pejorative in most contexts. At a minimum, in lieu of more current demographics, the sentence could be made more accurate by saying "Historically, Episcopalians and Presbyterians were viewed as wealthier ..." rather than stating it as a fact. Bobsd (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Generally Bad Editing

The farther one goes down this page, the worse the editing becomes. It looks as if it were edited by someone who was drunk. There are several instances of a sentence ending in a period, followed by a sentence fragment beginning with an uncapitalized word and soon ending with another period. It's so mangled, I hesitate to attempt to fix it myself, being unsure what the meaning here is even supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnatFriend (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Minor Edit to Initial List of Mainline Churches

I made a minor style edit to the format of the list of smaller mainline churches from a conventional list to a paragraph, so I could clarify that many (but not all) Quakers are considered mainline, while preceding that with a list of the five largest of the smaller mainline churches in the United States according to the size presented later in the article. I also modified both tne list of the Seven Sisters and the list of the other churches so as to provide the full name of each denomination (because some users may not know that the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ are unified, or that the true name of the Quakers is the Religious Society of Friends.

I classified this as a minor edit because no data or references were added or removed from the article, rather, the initial list of the most well known major and minor mainline churches was edited to provide greater clarity for readers.

Wgw2024 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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)