Number of Protestant Denominations

[rwoehmke]

Would the Southern Baptist Conference, the Lutheran Church in America, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, The Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod, The Congregational Church, The Presbyterian Church, etc each count as only one denomination or is each congregation considered a separate denomination?

According to an article in a Twin Cities Newspaper last week there are hundreds of small store front or home Churches being set up in the State of Minnesota. Most under a hundred members. Would each one of these be an independent denomination? Some Catholic Parishes are responding by setting up small faith groups within the larger parish as the driving force is seen as a need for closer fellowship that is difficult to achieve in a large parish.

 

[Teflon93]

Would the Southern Baptist Conference, the Lutheran Church in America, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, The Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod, The Congregational Church, The Presbyterian Church, etc each count as only one denomination or is each congregation considered a separate denomination?

Do they recognize the same authority? Is there one clergyman that they recognize as authoritative on ecclesiastical matters?

 

[PC_Master]

They hold Jesus Christ himself as their supreme authority, and I know from experience that SBC churches hold to the same major beliefs. I think that counts as a single denomination.

 

[rwoehmke]

Do they recognize the same authority? Is there one clergyman that they recognize as authoritative on ecclesiastical matters?

I believe the larger groups recognize a sort of Elected National Board of Directors for lack of a better term. The small home or store front churches are generally completely independent and the pastor is the man.

 

[Teflon93]

They hold Jesus Christ himself as their supreme authority, and I know from experience that SBC churches hold to the same major beliefs. I think that counts as a single denomination.

Only if Jesus rules on doctrinal matters. Given competing doctrines, one must presume Christ isn’t sowing discord but that interpretations are variable.

 

[Teflon93]

They hold Jesus Christ himself as their supreme authority, and I know from experience that SBC churches hold to the same major beliefs. I think that counts as a single denomination.

Also, can’t let an implied anti-Catholic argument fly by here:

The supreme authority of the Catholic Church is Christ. His Vicar is Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Philthy]

Unfortunately, Anti-protestant’s dont seem to mind bending the truth to get to the 33,000 number. Not quite Christian is it? You may not like protestants, but perpetuating untruths should not be a trait you want to display to the world.

The number comes from a Protestant source, kaycee. I’m not saying that I agree with it, but to claim that “anti-Protestants” are intentionally bending the truth is, in itself, bending the truth. The truth is that a Protestant source felt that the number was a reliable means of communicating how many denominations are out there. If you disagree with the number thats fine, but it is wrong to claim that anti - Protestant sentiment produced the number. The fact of the matter is that unlike the simplicity of determining those who are in union with the see of Peter, there is no absolutely accurate way to count Protestant denominations because they inherently lack specificity. While you may be justified in criticizing this number your inability to produce another source for a more accurate number is revealing IMHO.

 

[Contarini]

Do they recognize the same authority? Is there one clergyman that they recognize as authoritative on ecclesiastical matters?

That’s an unfair definition. Authority doesn’t have to be vested in one individual. In the United Methodist Church, for instance, the “magisterium” is the General Conference, though there are certain things General Conference cannot change.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Would the Southern Baptist Conference, the Lutheran Church in America, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, The Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod, The Congregational Church, The Presbyterian Church, etc each count as only one denomination or is each congregation considered a separate denomination?

Certainly each should be considered a single denomination. Also, there is no “Lutheran Church in America” anymore–it merged into the ELCA.

According to an article in a Twin Cities Newspaper last week there are hundreds of small store front or home Churches being set up in the State of Minnesota. Most under a hundred members. Would each one of these be an independent denomination?

That’s one reason why the whole enterprise of counting “denominations” is useless. For the purposes of comparison with the unity of the Catholic Church, I think independent churches that share the same doctrines and regularly exchange ministers, etc., should be counted as one.

If the argument is simply “Protestants don’t have the kind of organizational unity Catholics do,” Protestants will say, “so what?” You have to show some kind of practical disunity that clearly contradicts Our Lord’s wish that we should all be one (if you want to make a persuasive argument, that is). Simply counting “denominations” doesn’t do this.

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

That’s an unfair definition. Authority doesn’t have to be vested in one individual. In the United Methodist Church, for instance, the “magisterium” is the General Conference, though there are certain things General Conference cannot change.

Edwin

Nope. I think it’s quite fair to say that there’s got to be one guiding hand. In some Protestant denominations, that’s the pastor. In others, a bishop. In others, an Archbishop.

I have no problem with Anglicans claiming that the Archbishop of Canterbury is their authority providing he be able to definitively rule on matters of doctrine.

 

[Contarini]

Nope. I think it’s quite fair to say that there’s got to be one guiding hand.

Well, if that is how you define “unity,” then the whole debate is pointless. If you think Protestants are disunified because they look to a collective decision-making body rather than a single figure, Protestants are going to say: Who cares? When you say, “Non-Catholics are not unified” you really mean “non-Catholics are not like us.” Which we knew already.

And no, the ABC is not our equivalent of the “Pope.” He has very little authority, in fact.

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

Well, if that is how you define “unity,” then the whole debate is pointless. If you think Protestants are disunified because they look to a collective decision-making body rather than a single figure, Protestants are going to say: Who cares? When you say, “Non-Catholics are not unified” you really mean “non-Catholics are not like us.” Which we knew already.

And no, the ABC is not our equivalent of the “Pope.” He has very little authority, in fact.

Edwin

Are you claiming Protestants are unified? How about Episcopalians?

If authority isn’t an issue thanks to The Collective, what’s all the fuss between Jeffords-Schori and her African counterpart?

 

[Teflon93]

Well, if that is how you define “unity,” then the whole debate is pointless. If you think Protestants are disunified because they look to a collective decision-making body rather than a single figure, Protestants are going to say: Who cares? When you say, “Non-Catholics are not unified” you really mean “non-Catholics are not like us.” Which we knew already.

And no, the ABC is not our equivalent of the “Pope.” He has very little authority, in fact.

Edwin

And lest anyone be led astray, the Pope does indeed employ collective decision-making bodies. These are the Councils so often referenced around here.

Wouldn’t want anyone to think the Pope was an autocrat, would we?

 

[Contarini]

Are you claiming Protestants are unified? How about Episcopalians?

If authority isn’t an issue thanks to The Collective, what’s all the fuss between Jeffords-Schori and her African counterpart?

I didn’t say it wasn’t an issue. The Anglican Communion (and the Episcopal Church) appear to be in the process of breaking apart. I simply said that one can have unity without having one supreme authoritative individual. Nothing guarantees unity. (Obviously the Pope doesn’t either, or the Reformation wouldn’t have happened.)

And of course the point is valid that there are collective bodies in Catholicism as well. I was responding to your claim that there must be one “clergyman” with supreme authority for there to be meaningful unity.

I think this is an example of why the entire subject of “how many denominations” is pointless. It raises all sorts of questions about what counts as unity, and those are the really important issues.

Edwin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Wouldn’t want anyone to think the Pope was an autocrat, would we?

Speaking of autocrats, how far does this denom-splitting go back? Anyone remember how many denoms there were during Luther’s time? I would expect that it was an acceptable – almost noble – thing. Semper reformanda would necessarily result in many novelties which must have won quick favour among the folks. Has anyone looked into this aspect?

 

[Teflon93]

I didn’t say it wasn’t an issue. The Anglican Communion (and the Episcopal Church) appear to be in the process of breaking apart. I simply said that one can have unity without having one supreme authoritative individual. Nothing guarantees unity. (Obviously the Pope doesn’t either, or the Reformation wouldn’t have happened.)

And of course the point is valid that there are collective bodies in Catholicism as well. I was responding to your claim that there must be one “clergyman” with supreme authority for there to be meaningful unity.

I think this is an example of why the entire subject of “how many denominations” is pointless. It raises all sorts of questions about what counts as unity, and those are the really important issues.

Edwin

But follow the bouncing ball here for a second:

What separates schismatics is that they appeal to different authorities. The Reformation happened when the German princes began looking to Luther instead of the Pope for their religious doctrine. The current Episcopalian schism in the USA is because certain bishops do not recognize Jeffords-Schori’s authority.

To call these separate communities one denomination is to torture the term. They are clearly not in union, or at least heading to full disunion.

So I think the recognized authority is a pretty useful bellwether.

 

[Teflon93]

Speaking of autocrats, how far does this denom-splitting go back? Anyone remember how many denoms there were during Luther’s time? I would expect that it was an acceptable – almost noble – thing. Semper reformanda would necessarily result in many novelties which must have won quick favour among the folks. Has anyone looked into this aspect?

That’s an interesting question. The Great Contarini is our resident Reformation scholar—Edwin, any thoughts as to how these were enumerated on the eve of the Reformation?

 

[Contarini]

Speaking of autocrats, how far does this denom-splitting go back? Anyone remember how many denoms there were during Luther’s time?

Well, it depends on how you define the radical groups who were running around. If you count every group of Anabaptists and every wacky “spiritualist” sitting in his study dreaming about the ideal spiritual Church, then you are right that there were quite a lot by 1546. Not counting those groups, however, there were three “denominations” that had separated from Rome since 1517: the Lutherans, the Reformed, and the “Anglicans”–i.e., the independent Church of England led by Henry VIII, which had not yet become unambiguously Protestant in theology. The boundaries between the Lutherans and Reformed were still fluid, and Henry occasionally flirted with the Lutherans, while the Archbishop of Canterbury could probably be described as Reformed in theology by this time.

Then there were the pre-Reformation groups: the Bohemian Brethren, the one group that still maintained a clearly independent identity; the Utraquist Hussites, who had an ambiguous relationship with the Catholic Church; the Waldenses, who had merged with Reformed Protestantism by Luther’s death; and the Lollards, whose last martyr died in 1532 and whose status by 1546 no one really knows (presumably they had merged with Protestantism, though Eamon Duffy claims that they merged with the Anabaptist movement).

I would expect that it was an acceptable – almost noble – thing.

No. This reveals how completely you misunderstand the Reformation. The “magisterial” Reformers regarded disunity with utter horror. They justified their separation from Rome because they regarded Rome as Antichrist, but they certainly did not think that separation was trivial, much less a good thing. I suggest that you read the first few chapters of book 4 of Calvin’s Institutes (1559 edition).

I don’t blame you–later Protestants have read their own love of schism back into the Reformers. And, of course, the fact that the Reformers didn’t want to establish a bunch of competing “denominations” helps establish just what a failure the Magisterial Reformation was!

Edwin

 

[PC_Master]

That’s one reason why the whole enterprise of counting “denominations” is useless. For the purposes of comparison with the unity of the Catholic Church, I think independent churches that share the same doctrines and regularly exchange ministers, etc., should be counted as one.

Yes. The similarity between these groups is much like the similarity between different members of the Roman Catholic Church. The differences in beliefs are minor. When they become major, authorities make a ruling, and people either agree with it, or they split away. This happened with the Roman Catholic Church throughout history.

If the argument is simply “Protestants don’t have the kind of organizational unity Catholics do,” Protestants will say, “so what?” You have to show some kind of practical disunity that clearly contradicts Our Lord’s wish that we should all be one (if you want to make a persuasive argument, that is). Simply counting “denominations” doesn’t do this.

Exactly!

Nothing guarantees unity. (Obviously the Pope doesn’t either, or the Reformation wouldn’t have happened.)

Not to mention the various other schisms in the church.

I think this is an example of why the entire subject of “how many denominations” is pointless. It raises all sorts of questions about what counts as unity, and those are the really important issues.

Right.

That’s really the central point here – you guys are claiming that the Roman Catholic Church has a required unity that the rest of the denominations out there don’t have. Now, that’s all well and good to say, but you need some practical examples.

Heck, I’ve already heard differing interpretations of the meaning of the words of various popes throughout history. Can you authoritatively tell me every detail of faith as it applies to my daily life? Will the pope do so, completely free of error? Of course not! And thus, you’re allowing for disunity…just not on the things you consider to be major. But guess what – Protestant denominations (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc) are generally united on the important stuff too…within their denomination.

To claim there is only one Roman Catholic Church, but that there are 33,000 protestant churches, is to say that all Roman Catholics agree on all matters of faith completely. And that’s simply a lie.

 

[Contarini]

But follow the bouncing ball here for a second:

What separates schismatics is that they appeal to different authorities. The Reformation happened when the German princes began looking to Luther instead of the Pope for their religious doctrine. The current Episcopalian schism in the USA is because certain bishops do not recognize Jeffords-Schori’s authority.

To call these separate communities one denomination is to torture the term. They are clearly not in union, or at least heading to full disunion.

Absolutely.

So I think the recognized authority is a pretty useful bellwether.

Non sequitur. Also petitio principii, for that matter. You are starting with the assumption that ++Jefferts Schori’s authority is the deciding factor (never mind that the Episcopal Church is one constituent of the Anglican Communion), so obviously you wind up with the conclusion that a “recognized authority” is the decisive factor. You started out with it!

Acknowledgment of the Presiding Bishop’s authority is one of the things that makes you part of the Episcopal Church. However, General Convention has far more authority than the PB. Similarly, in the Communion both the ABC and the Lambeth Conference are signs and instruments of unity, but neither have any direct authority over the individual provinces (well, the ABC obviously has authority over his own!).

I am not disputing that the Episcopal Church is on its way to schism–indeed, quite a few parishes have left outright already.

Edwin