Skip to comments.30,000 Protestant Denominations?
Posted on 03/31/2004 10:31:28 AM PST by HarleyD
Due to popular request and to the ongoing distortion of figures from uninformed Roman Catholic apologists writing on this issue, I am posting the following excerpt from my forthcoming book, Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002).
Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologists primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown thateven if this figure is correctthe Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.
When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?
I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words denomination and Protestant were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.
I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barretts World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 19002000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barretts work in this area really says.
First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.
Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical blocs under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.
According to Barretts calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantismnot 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines distinct denominations as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).
No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate denominationsand that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologists method to project a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 bickering denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is unity, then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.
In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by denomination is any ecclesial body that retains a jurisdiction (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lions share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barretts calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dimes worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barretts count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
However Barrett has defined denomination, it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical blocs (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls major ecclesiastical traditions, and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical blocs (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-twoobviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assertand that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.
As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barretts broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation.
Moreover, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).
In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of doctrinal chaos Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal forceand perhaps even greater forceagainst the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.
If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).
In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelesslyand, as a result, irresponsiblyglanced at Barretts work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this errorand correct iteach time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.
And the truth would be even less of a target if more Protestants followed Calvin's horizontal hierarchy of ecclesiastical responsibility.
Those bellicose Baptists always screw-up the curve. 8~)
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." -- Matthew 7:14
So what did they whittle it down to? I guess I'll be forced to go with that.
No, you're confused. The derision and ridicule of Protestants is on the "Where Have all the FR Protestants Gone?" thread.
(I know you guys like your authoritative tones.)
We're supposed to believe that every independent Baptist Church and every one of their pastors is "identical in belief and practice"?
"No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism!"
And to which one of the 223 Catholic denominations do you belong?
This is an interesting link.
But the article is saying you could have 10 Southern Baptist churches in one city with the same belief (not implausible in a large city) but they were each counted as a seperate church since Southern Baptist are independently operated. This, of course, drive the count up of Protestant denominations if you want to slice the cookie this way.
One would have to look at David A. Barretts World Christian Encyclopedia for a more detail understanding.
First of all, this article is confusing. If he is counting "jurisdictions" then he is making an error. The Coptic Rite and the Latin Rite Catholic churches are different rites, but within the same One Church. In no way are they to be counted as "denominations." They all, ultimately, fall under the jurisdiction of the Pope.
As a matter of fact, that is the only way to count what is Catholic. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. If the Pope is not the head of the Church, on earth, then it is not Catholic.
I know of only one denomination that fits that bill. Yes, there are seperate rites and jurisdictions beneath the Papal level, but they are all part of the One Church.
"Traditionalists" and such are schismatic. They are not under the pope's jurisdiction. To call them a "Catholic" "denomination" is to err. If the Pope is not in charge it isn't Catholic.
Score, still and always, Catholic denominations, 1. Protestants, many.
Maybe it's not 30,000. But it's more than one. At the very least you can make a matrix of serious doctrinal differences and come across variations upon them. Anything more than one is a result of the desire to disobey the Pope's authority and branch out on your own. Once the principal of there being no authority is established, further severance is guaranteed.
Southern Baptists should not be counted individually. They adhere to a common belief.
I will grant that not every non-denominational Cchurch, or every "Free" Baptist Churhc is unique. But in no way are they all the same either.
So they are not "one" and yet they are not "thousands" either. The point is that without an authority, there is nothing holding unity together. The Protestant principle leads naturally to division.
I never said it was, but it's far more objective than most. FWIW, I didn't see a Catholic bias, rather I saw a universalist bias. Go figure.
You're forgetting the ever-popular "home church" people who think a tax-exemption is the mar kof the beast. So the number must be even higher. ;-)
Why did I KNOW this thread was going to go downhill fast?
Just laugh at the idiots on both sides, and forgive both sides for their respective idiots.
LOL! By that definition, the Catholics just knocked themselves out of the picture as well!
Let's take up the definition of the word religious denomination for starters (acc. MW dictionary):
The author of this piece obviously doesn't understand that the Eastern Orthodox Church represents a communion of churches that forms one "legal" and "administrative body," that it is catholic in terms of theology and manner of worship and that Coptic Orthodox is not a "denomination" of Eastern orthodox, or vice versa.
Similarly, the Catholic Church represents a "legal" and "administrative body" of churches, a communion that includes various rites, both eastern and western.
To compare that with various independent, self-styled, self-defined, dime-a-dozen neighborhood buildings called "something church" should be embarrassing enough to not even attempt to so say in public, let alone publish it.
The problem with 30,000 or 8,000 whichever, is that each claims to interpret the "truth" sufficiently differently from the next-door-dime-a-doze-churches to call itself a different "church," reducing the ecclesia to almost a local clanship and personal issue.
What "unites" all Protestants is nothing compare to what separates them, "legally" and "administratively" into separate sects.
My only conclusion about this is that they must NOT have found the truth they claim. For the Truth is One, and minor differences notwithstanding, the true Church will be one theologically, administratively and legally. And there are only two such Churches in the world -- the Eastern orthodox and the Roman Catholic; the two churches that came out of the One original Church.
By definition, and logic, as it wasfor 1,000 years. But human corruption makes room to tempt even that which is holy. And once the doors were opened to such temptation, the unholiness never stopped.
A oneness that is greater than temporary and localised nonsense. There always have, and always will be, bad teachers in the Church. And yet the doctrine remains pure. It helps to think in centuries and not years.
Not really, there is only one Catholic Church to deny this is to deny reality.
SSPX is in schism, Opus Dei is in communion. You're not making a point as far as I can tell.
Let's say there are only 500 contradictory Protestant denominations. How about only three? All contradicting each other except in their unified hatred/jelousy of the Church's authority, and ALL exactly RIGHT. That's unity and good sense for you.
Protestants are united in belief on the essentials of the gospel message.
Outside of these essentials, we are free to disagree. We have no ultimate dissension among ourselves.
We have anathemized no other believers.
We consider all believers to be part of the body of Christ.
And ... in light of the news of the day, ... no Protestant alive today envies anything Catholic.
But really, think in centuries. It's not a cliche.
If you act strongly and cause a formal schism, how many might become lost? Versus the situation whereby we can reclaim the dioceses that are troubled through attrition and by a re-awakening of orthodoxy?
As Pope, you will be responsible for your actions and must take such things into consideration. Maybe this generation in LA is lost. Do you want to make that permanent?
These are the questions a pope faces.
What does that mean?
Protestants are united in belief on the essentials of the gospel message.
Can you produce evidence of any Protestant who is not ?
Works for me 8-) Actually, removing Mahoney would suffice. Leveling the Taj Mahoney, or selling it to the UN for earth worship, would be the icing on the cake.