Talk:Nominal Christian

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2010. The result of the discussion was Delete.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evangelical bias

Most discussion of nominal Christianity is by Christians who judge/negatively assess other Christians as less devout or Biblical than they are. This article currently reflects that view. There's a fair bit of sociology of religion which views nominal Christians significantly more positively. I'm thinking, for example, of Hall's Lived Religion in America: Toward A History of Practice. This kind of material should be included here. Also, those labelled as nominal Christians similarly judge their evaluators as being rigid, out of touch with contemporary culture, dogmatic, and Puritanical. I'm not sure how that might be included here, but without some recognition, this article is only representing one side of a debate. Daask (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But I searched for "nominal" in Hall's book and nothing came up. St Anselm (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem rather evangelical-centric. 142.161.83.66 (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated above, this article is extremely evangelical-centric and completely biased. The Lausanne Movement is not so relevant among Christians, probably not at all. I'm going to suggest the merger of this article into cultural Christians. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The same negative bias affects the article Sunday Christian, that should be merged as well. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cafeteria Christianity as a sub-topic

Why is the broader topic of Cafeteria Christianity considered as a sub-topic of what the Lausanne Movement believes? Should it not be the contrary? Veverve (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]