Talk:Evangelicals and Catholics Together

George Weigel
George Weigel is Catholic but is listed as an Evangelical who signed the document.

Additional ECT documents
This Wikipedia article leaves the impression that the ECT group has only published one statement. In fact there are 7 statements. This article needs to be revised to reflect the broader scope of this initiative, perhaps with discussion of the different documents produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.49.90 (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality amongst references
Most of the sources referenced in this article are from organizations critical of the initiative. The references are also improperly written. "Commentary on..." is insufficient. Readers should know what source is being referenced and if that source has a POV. The references as they stand now are WP:Weasel. --Sixtrojans (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, those were the best on-line sources I was able to find for the time being. I know there was a lot mainstream coverage on the topic, but most of the archived material seems to come from culture-specific reviews like Christianity Today. There is no doubt in my opinion however that the ECT movement/agreement is (very) WP notable, and I would not think that other editors would really feel otherwise. ADM (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am assuming that you started this article in good faith. I'm surprised actually that one did not exist on this topic because it is indeed notable. The article needs to be templated until it gets out of its early stub status. To be balanced, I think there need to be 1) mainstream references, 2) evangelical "pro" and "con" positions, and 3) catholic "pro" and "con" positions (if they exist -- I don't really know how Catholics have viewed this topic). I think the article itself is fairly neutral, but the references mostly go to evangelical negative criticisms, which may lead the casual reader researching this topic to think that's the majority view. From my limited knowledge of the subject, I think that evangelicals were split (and now mostly apathetic) towards this document.--Sixtrojans (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs additional sources for verification
There was a lot of mainstream press coverage about this group, yet none of it has made its way into the article yet.--Sixtrojans (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say Evangelicals were not apathetic about the document at all; but rather, somewhat divided between the more traditional Reformed camp, e.g. R.C. Sproul, and the neo-evangelical camp, Os Guinness, Charles Colson, et. al. (The neo-evangelical moniker is off the top of my head, not sure at all whether Guinness or Colson would be comfortable with it.) See one of Evangelicalism's heartland publishers, NavPress's work, EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS TOGETHER by Keith Fournier, who is a Catholic. The organization took some heat for publishing the work which they took amiably, explaining that they wanted their evangelical brethren to be educated on how the conversation was developing between the two groups, and particularly to hear how a self-described "Evangelical-Catholic" thought about the whole proceeding. Coloradobull (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and i remember reading several years ago a counter document (evangelicals and catholics not together, or something) with signatories of around 2 dozen major evangelical including John Macarthur and R.C. Sproul, Alistair Begg, etc.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A Google News |Archive search turns up some articles from the mainstream press that can potentially be used as references. For example, here's a NY Times article:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

removing POV template without ongoing discussion per Template:POV instructions
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic is abbreviated to Catholic in title but not text
Just as Evangelicals are Protestants, Roman Catholics as opposed to other churches claiming Catholicity, like the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, are intended in the document. The text of the declaration is quite clear, for example'relationship between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants'. The term Roman should be restored for accuracy's sake. Catholic is imprecise shorthand, most churches aspire to catholicity without being Roman. Cpsoper (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)