This article 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
The new header shifts the scope from geographical to political regions. Unfortunately, in doing so it is redundant, because Ireland is in the U.K. "Britain and Ireland", on the other hand, are two islands in the North Atlantic. They aren't going to move; but the political boundaries probably will, some day. I think we should stick with geographical regions, for that reason. Is there objection to that reasoning? Mkmcconn
Except for the statement 'Ireland is in the UK', it was a good job to change the title back to being geographically-based. I think I changed it in the first place, against my better judgement. Thanks, good work, Mkmcconn. Peace. --Kaihsu 15:48 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Thank you. Re:Ireland - :-) well - to be accurate, "Northern Ireland is in the U.K." - but, I suppose that makes the point that much clearer. I'm grateful for your cooperative spirit. Mkmcconn
Really fine improvements to this article, lately. I hope that all those red links will get some attention, over time (especially those to creeds and to Calvin's Institutes). Mkmcconn 20:08 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I came to this talk page to discuss how I think there should be more content on the development of Reformed Churches within the United States. I think this is in line with Alan Liefting's intuition that there needs to be a distinction between just listing all the churchs and saying how they came about. RCUS may be a partial solution but I agree that this article is looking like at list at this point. Perhaps move the listy stuff to a list article. MPS15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that this article over time has evolved into a list - this happened because its original aim was to describe these churches as a family tree, in terms of history and documents of faith, that has branched out all over the world. But it is always in danger of becoming nothing more than a list. This is made the more obvious by the recent inclusion of Baptist groups, which if it were a continuing trend would make it useless even as a list. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New category: Reformed seminaries and theological colleges[edit]
There doesn't appear to be an adequate description of what the content of reformed theology is, compared to other theologies. Such a section could also include links to other articles that go into more detail, such as TULIP. 210.9.200.35 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC) That was me, didn't log in. Bernard S. Jansen01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second this, it is kind of silly to have a page called 'Reformed Churches' which doesn't even mention what reformed theology is. In fact, it doesn't even link to the Reformed Theology page. Also, there may be a difference between a church with 'reformed theology' and a a 'reformed church' if so, there should be two different articles --Theonomist (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with the Reformed churches, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Each nation in which the Reformed movement was originally established had its own church government." Does this sentence mean that:1- each country, once it had a Reformed church, established a government controlled by that church, 2- in each country the Reformed church established a church hierarchy different from those of all other countries, or 3- something else? Nitpyck (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be some mention of the Church of England. Although it wouldn't be appropriate to simply label the C of E Reformed without qualification (it's a complex and diverse church), many in the church historically and indeed today throughout world-wide Anglicanism identify as "reformed" protestants. While not "reformed" in church polity (i.e. presbyterian/congegrational) its sacramental theology and other aspects of the 39 Articles of Faith are distinctly reformed (as opposed to Lutheran, for example) in inspiration. The Church sent a delegation to the Synod of Dordt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.187.181 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose It is beyond common to refer to the Reformed and Calvinist traditions synonymously, as the Calvinism article does in the lead and has done for as long as I know. Because of common usage there needs to be better precision regarding what this article is about. This article went on for years with the old title and a vague lead and without making any distinction with Calvinism. --JFHutson (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they're exactly the same thing, why did you move the article instead of AfDing it? If they were the exact same thing, why does this article even exist? pbp19:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is about "Reformed churches," then that very commonly means the same thing as "Calvinist churches." However, it appears that this article was intended to be about the continental Reformed tradition (see talk:Calvinism#Merge Reformed churches here and some of the older versions of the page), and in that case it is not the same thing. I thought it would be a good idea to merge with Calvinism, but in the discussion aforementioned it was made clear that there is a desire to have a separate article about the continental Reformed. I know next to nothing about the distinctiveness of this tradition, but I wanted people looking for Reformed church in the most common sense of the term to end up at the right place. --JFHutson (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree that "Reformed" generally means "Calvinistic," but JFHutson's move was probably too radical for unilateral action. The merge discussion linked above suggests several editors support keeping the articles separate. But the idea that "Reformed church" and "Calvinist church" mean the same thing isn't crazy. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the logic does not follow. It seems that Continental Reformed Church is a specific example of Calvinism and the Reformed Church. It wouldn't specifically take the place and represent all Reformed Churches as WP:Common. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The chapter about forms of government is currently too general.
In the Netherlands a local church council consists of the minister, the elders and the deacons who are all ordained;
In (at least part of) the Swiss churches a local church council consists of non-ordained council members, and there are church "co-workers", while it is not necessary that council members and co-workers are the same people;