The Maze of Christian Denomination

[Zenith Darksea]

Most religions have varying different wings, groups who take a different approach to the same issues and take a different reading of their religion's teachings. Islam has the divide between Sunni and Shia, Buddhism has pacifism at one extreme and Japanese warrior Buddhism at the other, and even Judaism has divisions within it. However, besides Hinduism (which has tens of thousands of gods, technically speaking), surely no major religion can compete with Christianity when it comes to fragmentation. According to a recent survey, there are over 34,000 Christian denominations.

Thirty four thousand? Apparently so. It seems that at least half are simply independent congregations with no desire to associate with others. Add to this the spirit of continual renaissance (and, as a result, fragmentation) begun by the reformation and encouraged by a society that is increasingly concerned with the individual. However, I shan't try here to explain why there are thirty four thousand denominations. Most are really quite insignificant, and comparison with the largest Churches is inappropriate.

There seem to have been a number of Christians, in the West at any rate, who have instinctively reacted against the idea of 'denomination'. Indeed, many, instead of identifying with, say, Catholicism, Methodism, Anglicanism et al. will say that they are 'just Christian'. I was introduced to this interesting new idea, that of 'non-denominational' Christianity when talking to an American girl who had come to study theology at my university for a couple of years. I was quite intrigued.

"So what do you believe then? Surely you must accept some definite creed?" I asked.

"Well, it does change quite a bit depending on who's preaching," she admitted.

Despite the apparent wooliness of this, I can see where non-denominational Christians are coming from. They are, quite rightly, concerned about splits among Christians and dislike the idea of having to take sides. After all, as Christ is recorded as saying in John 17:20-23, "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Unity is clearly an important ideal in Christianity, and yet there have been numerous splits down the years, and even more so in recent times. Taken to extremes, we see examples such as the infamous Westboro Baptist Church in America, which takes a dim view of Christians who aren't one of their hundred or so strong congregation (the Baptist Church, incidentally, is in no way affiliated with them). No wonder these new non-denominational Christians take the line that they do.

However, non-denominational Christianity can hardly be said to overcome these problems - it merely seeks to ignore them. In a religion that upholds a single truth, this seems to be an attempt to allow everyone their own individual version of that truth without admitting the fact. Non-denominationals should be admired for their will, yet it seems to be an insufficient answer. They can hardly be blamed though - the majority have been brought up in a society of a vastly different culture and philosophy to that of ancient Christianity. Isolated by the Atlantic and a thousand years of Western self-centredness, I suppose that they have tried to find the best answer from what they know. However, it is unfortunate that these Western denominations, which claim to know the Bible and Christianity so much better than everyone else (and I don't just mean Protestants here), have virtually no knowledge at all about what the Christian Church once was in the days when it was actually united, just as Christ had prayed that it would be.

Not only is a clear set of beliefs required, but a clear Church organisation. St Cyprian of Carthage said that there is, "No salvation without the Church." Unlike many modern Western Christians, imbued with the capitalistic culture of the individual, Cyprian understood the need for a visible and positive community of Christians, people who share not only in worship but in each other's toil, sadness and joy.

This community is not just any organisation; it is the Body of Christ, the Church, inspired, convened and energised by the Holy Spirit. Here we may find salvation. This we know without a shadow of a doubt. Outside the Church we are just lonely individuals, trying, with greater or lesser confidence to make it on our own. Most Christians of course would resist such notions, but there is a more subtle form of the same error; namely that the Church is merely the calling together of faithful individual Christians, much in the same way that I might belong to a golf club in order to play golf. Missing from this idea of the Church is the necessity of belonging to the body in order to find one's true identity as a child of God. Man is a social animal and salvation is social as well!

Further to this, we can see the now common principle among Protestants that a person can be saved without any effort of will on their own part (ie. God simply 'saves' them, and then they're guaranteed eternal life whatever they do). A person is simply 'born again', and then that's the end of their worries! While the general spirit of trusting in God is wholly postive, the details of its execution are quite negative! Some parts of scripture are thus accepted, while the rest is conveniently ignored.

This problem to a large extent points back to one man - St Augustine. Augustine was right to confront the British heretic monk Pelagius (who believed that our freedom could procure our own salvation from God). Augustine was wrong, however to claim, especially in his later years, that our wills were utterly compromised and disabled but for divine grace. Many Protestant reformers emphasised this last point in their fear of Pelagianism almost to the point of saying that to do any work for our salvation was an abomination. These quietists (whose only hope of salvation is for God to "do it all" according to his pre-ordained plan) have fatally wounded the western religious mind. Western Man’s religious self is inactive and God-absorbed. His secular self, the one he parades in the public domain as the real, practical, "relevant" truth of his existence, has become hyperactive and God-absent. All this has happened simply because the west has lost its old understanding of communion, both man with man and man with God.

So how is this relevant to the question of denominations? It asserts that Christians need to exist together in a visible body with one common will and purpose. Different opinions may (unsurprisingly) exist concerning God's mysteries, but concerning His revelation we should have one interpretation as shown to the Apostles by Christ.

Believe it or not, such a Church can be found. The solution is surprisingly easy - if we want to know what sort of Church Christ and His Apostles created, we need only look back in history and reconnect with the ancient and (in the West) lost culture of the East. Christianity is after all an Eastern religion (though you might not think it these days!), and it has been preserved there throughout the centuries. The answer then is not to pretend that there is no such thing as the Church. If we want to fulfil Christ's will, the answer is to try to find the historical Church of Christ, not to try to conjure up our own version for ourselves out of our imagination.

The answer my friends, as you will have guessed by now, is Orthodox Christianity.

[PTL]

How does the Eastern Orthodox Church deal with Apostolic Succession? That was a major point of contention that brought one of my friends to prefer Roman Catholicism.

[therussian]

The answer my friends, as you will have guessed by now, is Orthodox Christianity.

+rep for that post.


Anyway, It's hard to argue which denomination is the true form of Christianity. The Church has evolved so much over the last 2 millenia that even if we were to pick the one that was most like the original Church, they would be very different.

Of course, I do believe that Orthodox christianity is the closest and purest form of the Christian faith, but not the Greek and Russian forms. I lean more towards (and this is completely without bias) the Coptic, Syrian and Armenian Oriental Orthodox Churches.

For example, the Armenian church is officially known as the Armenian Apostolic Oriental Orthodox Church, because it was based on the teachings of the two apostles Thaddeus and Bartholemew. Little has changed since those times in the Armenian liturgy.


Also, I really don't understand non-denominational Christianity.

"So, what type of Christian are you?"
"I'm a non-denominational Christian"
"Oh, so you're part of the non-denominational denomination?"
"That's right"

[Zenith Darksea]

How does the Eastern Orthodox Church deal with Apostolic Succession? That was a major point of contention that brought one of my friends to prefer Roman Catholicism.

Oh, it's quite straightforward really. It's like handing on a baton in a race - Christ handed His authority to His Apostles, they passed it on to the next generation of bishops, they passed it on to the next, and so forth. When a person is ordained in the Orthodox Church they are, in effect, tracing their authority back through Apostolic succession to Christ. I don't think there's very much difference in that regard. However, the differences do lie in the fact that the Orthodox Church preserves the original theology of the Church and the Oecumenical Councils before the Holy Roman Empire, and subsquently the Roman Pope (who took his lead from Charlemagne), started making their own innovations (in particular the filioque clause added to the Nicene Creed without any form of consultation) in the ninth century AD.

Orthodoxy preserves the original communal spirit of the Church that prevailed at the Oecumenical Councils, something that the Roman Catholic Church cannot really say it does.

For example, the Armenian church is officially known as the Armenian Apostolic Oriental Orthodox Church, because it was based on the teachings of the two apostles Thaddeus and Bartholemew. Little has changed since those times in the Armenian liturgy.

Well Armenia was the first nation to officially accept Christianity of course, but it's no more Apostolic than other Orthodox Churches. Aside from the monophysite heresy (which, so I hear, doesn't really exist in Oriental Churches these days), I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are quite close to the 'original' Church. Indeed, I've heard rumours that it might even reunite with the Eastern Orthodox Church in ten or twenty years.

[therussian]

Well Armenia was the first nation to officially accept Christianity of course, but it's no more Apostolic than other Orthodox Churches. Aside from the monophysite heresy (which, so I hear, doesn't really exist in Oriental Churches these days), I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are quite close to the 'original' Church. Indeed, I've heard rumours that it might even reunite with the Eastern Orthodox Church in ten or twenty years.

We don't like to think of it as "heresy" per se, but.....

And I kind of doubt that it will reunite with the Greek church. But who knows, time will tell.

[Zenith Darksea]

Well, I'd quite like to see it happen myself. But I'm not actually a Greek though. As an outsider, I don't really suffer from nationalistic prejudices in this regard.

[therussian]

The way I see it, unless the Orthodox churches offer large financial support or other kinds of help to the Armenians and Co, it won't be happening.

It's unfortunate that the Church administration has been transformed into a corporate business

[John I Tzimisces]

The heresy bit is a misnomer. We reject both monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon (dyophysitism). In fact, we ourselves label monophysitism a heresy.
The term we use is miaphysite, and honestly I don't know enough about the subject to really go any further.

[Zenith Darksea]

Well, let's try and stay on topic then.

[I Have a Clever Name]

So how is this relevant to the question of denominations? It asserts that Christians need to exist together in a visible body with one common will and purpose. Different opinions may (unsurprisingly) exist concerning God's mysteries, but concerning His revelation we should have one interpretation as shown to the Apostles by Christ.

The problem is that people simply disagree with you. They have different opinions, they enter the denomination that represents those views or else they practice Christianity in conformity with their beliefs in solitude.

Believe it or not, such a Church can be found. The solution is surprisingly easy - if we want to know what sort of Church Christ and His Apostles created, we need only look back in history and reconnect with the ancient and (in the West) lost culture of the East. Christianity is after all an Eastern religion (though you might not think it these days!), and it has been preserved there throughout the centuries. The answer then is not to pretend that there is no such thing as the Church. If we want to fulfil Christ's will, the answer is to try to find the historical Church of Christ, not to try to conjure up our own version for ourselves out of our imagination.

You believe its the historical Church of Christ, but then thats your opinion. Roman Catholics would say the same. This is precisely why we have denominations.

The answer my friends, as you will have guessed by now, is Orthodox Christianity.

I realise you'd love to envisage Christians uniting under one banner, or more specifically, the Orthodox banner, but it won't happen. Despite your empowering rhetoric the fact remains that this is purely your interpretation of what is right as opposed to others which are wrong. I'm sure you can probably provide historical substantiation to affirm the notion that Orthodoxy is the divinely sanctioned church, and for the record I for the most part agree (except for the divine bit naturally), but simply put if people want to pursue a non-denominational faith based on their reflection of the texts they will do so.

Also, I really don't understand non-denominational Christianity.

"So, what type of Christian are you?"
"I'm a non-denominational Christian"
"Oh, so you're part of the non-denominational denomination?"
"That's right"

They don't belong to any denomination. You're just using word play by putting words in the mouth of a fictitious speaker.

urther to this, we can see the now common principle among Protestants that a person can be saved without any effort of will on their own part (ie. God simply 'saves' them, and then they're guaranteed eternal life whatever they do). A person is simply 'born again', and then that's the end of their worries!

Thats a rather evangelical approach. From all my dealings with Protestants, and in fact my evangelical friend, that is certainly not the case - be careful not to generalize. This quick-fix notion is prevalent, but it isn't all pervading even in evangelism, yet alone protestantism.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Islam has the divide between Sunni and Shia,

They have a few more than that.

Heres a few

PS all christians believe basically the same thing as do most Muslims as far as Islam goes.

[Zenith Darksea]

Despite your empowering rhetoric the fact remains that this is purely your interpretation of what is right as opposed to others which are wrong. I'm sure you can probably provide historical substantiation to affirm the notion that Orthodoxy is the divinely sanctioned church, and for the record I for the most part agree (except for the divine bit naturally), but simply put if people want to pursue a non-denominational faith based on their reflection of the texts they will do so.

Well of course I realise this, otherwise I wouldn't have made the post in the first place. However, I believe the reasons that people would take a different view of matters are due more to cultural divides (and the fact that that is what they are used to) than to strong feelings about interpretation of the scripture (this latter arises from the cultural divides, of course). The historical substantiation for Orthodoxy is irrefutable (to the point that these days even many Roman Catholics will admit it, though not by any means all of them), and personally I found when I became Christian that if I didn't become Orthodox then I couldn't remain intellectually honest with myself (I am primarily a historian).

I think that the challenge is to break down these cultural divides that get in the way, and to some extent this has already begun. A large number of Westerners have come back to Orthodoxy now, and indeed I understand that in Orthodox seminaries in America over half the students are Americans, not Greeks, Russians, et al. However there is clearly a long way to go yet.

PS all christians believe basically the same thing as do most Muslims as far as Islam goes.

Up to a point, yes; however, the differences in belief are not so small as to be possible to ignore. All Christians believe in the Trinity, the majority believe in the two natures of Christ (except the Oriental Orthodox, of course), all believe that Christ was the son of God, and so on. However, if you look at issues like predestination, the nature of salvation, the method of worship, attitudes towards the Saints, belief about the, ahem, 'rapture', a person's relationship with Christ, and many others, you'll see an enormous gulf of thinking.

[Richard]

I believe there was Southpark episode whcih touched on this subject of 'which one is right?'. In the end Mormonism won. For those of you who seek a definitive answer.

And one thing that puzzles me, I went to a Catholic school, and was told in Religion class that many of the more bizarre things in the Bible (ie most of Genesis and Revelation) were just representations of other things, and not meant to be taken literally.

[Zenith Darksea]

And one thing that puzzles me, I went to a Catholic school, and was told in Religion class that many of the more bizarre things in the Bible (ie most of Genesis and Revelation) were just representations of other things, and not meant to be taken literally.

I think that those are issues for a different discussion. Shall we stay on topic?

[I Have a Clever Name]

However, I believe the reasons that people would take a different view of matters are due more to cultural divides (and the fact that that is what they are used to) than to strong feelings about interpretation of the scripture (this latter arises from the cultural divides, of course). The historical substantiation for Orthodoxy is irrefutable (to the point that these days even many Roman Catholics will admit it, though not by any means all of them), and personally I found when I became Christian that if I didn't become Orthodox then I couldn't remain intellectually honest with myself (I am primarily a historian).

Conformity with the historical record and what is right is not what most people are interested in. People turn to religion for comfort, and whatever denomination offers them the most happy environment is what people will go for. Catholocism for example provides a father figure who is allegedly the vicar of Christ himself, this promotes an incredible feeling of solidarity not to mention the fact that it makes things incredibly simple. Evangelism is a modern approach to what would otherwise be percieved as an outdated religion etc.

People aren't really concerned about what is intellectually right, and to risk your eternal hatred, I'd say thats why most people turn to religion in the first place. Its about the comfort, hope, companionship and purpose it provides - not whether the denomination can trace an historical link with Christ. If people don't feel comfortable with Orthodoxy they're going to assume that it is no longer representative of Christ's wishes. You are one of the few exceptional cases where belief encounters historical responsibility.

I think that the challenge is to break down these cultural divides that get in the way, and to some extent this has already begun. A large number of Westerners have come back to Orthodoxy now, and indeed I understand that in Orthodox seminaries in America over half the students are Americans, not Greeks, Russians, et al. However there is clearly a long way to go yet.

Well, if Christians were to unite under one banner I would hope it would be Orthodoxy. Yet it has to be said I'm glad Christianity is suffering from fragmentation - it reinforces the skeptic's position. First however, before my nightmares are realised, Orthodoxy itself has to unify once more.

[Barbarian-Bob]

What I noticed is that some people have turned to the Orthodox and Catholic church because it's simply a bit more "flashy" than your normal Angelic or Protestant church. People want a more "obvious" presence of God in the church, which they get from all the false gold, incense, and generally more lavish and ceremonius services, than the ones provided by the relatively spartan Protestant church, for instance.

But that's only a small group, I think. Either way, as long as people have some form of church to go to, I am sure the big guy is pleased.

[The Knight 2100]

I think that ultimately Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox believe the same thing. And the number of denominations and styles of worship reflects the diversity to be found amongst Christians. The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches are all really the original church. There was no point where everyone stopped and said "Okay we're not the original church anymore, we're something else." Christians should be respecting one another's differences and coming together as brothers and sisters in the Christian faith.

[Zenith Darksea]

Orthodoxy itself has to unify once more.

Well it is actually united. Unless you're referring to the Orientals, of course. But that split goes back even before the split with the Latins.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Well it is actually united. Unless you're referring to the Orientals, of course. But that split goes back even before the split with the Latins.

Indeed, and what a triumph that would be if the two sides could be reconciled despite ancient differences. It would open a few eyes.

[I Have a Clever Name]

People want a more "obvious" presence of God in the church, which they get from all the false gold, incense, and generally more lavish and ceremonius services, than the ones provided by the relatively spartan Protestant church, for instance.

Thats the impression I get when visiting Catholic churches in Western Europe. Although the gold isn't usually false, from what I can discern. The renaissance frescoes are akin to illustrated story books designed for the uneducated peasantry who could not understand latin. Imagery is of profound importance.

Some people prefer imagery, stimulating incense and elaborate ceremonies. Others are more inclined to a 'purer' and more straightforward approach to God. And, many find the modern and informal approach of evangelical and pentacostal denominations appealing. I'd say its pretty much dependent on the mindset of the individual - very few care for actual historical links.

I'd rather stay at home and argue with relatives.