Skip to comments.30,000 Protestant Denominations?
Posted on 09/24/2002 7:54:39 PM PDT by RnMomof7
30,000 Protestant Denominations?
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.
My state representative is a pro-choice Catholic.
Protestants accept Christ as the only true head of his church. If the primacy of the Pope as head of the Roman church nullifies 'denominationalism' within the Roman communion, then certainly the same principle of unity will be granted for Protestantism? That is precisely the contention of many Protestants regarding the spiritual unity of the church in Christ, regardless of the polity or structure of worship within any particular denominational expression.
You wrote: "The essence of Protestantism is that one is free to reject what one personally feels is not compatible with scripture - and that one's personal feelings on any given matter trump any Church doctrine."
Surely you must know you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole here that is not at all honest or accurate. One's personal feelings trumping 'Church doctrine' is not the essence of Protestantism. That the Bible is the supreme and only rule of faith and practice is the Protestant principle. However, the Bible is interpreted within the larger community of the church from the patristic era down to today. The creeds, councils, the fathers and the confessions of the catholic church (including the Biblical insights of the Roman tradition) guide and inform the Protestant.
Mystics may allow 'feelings' to trump ecclesial doctrine or the witness of Scripture, but mysticism is not Protestantism.
You wrote: "The only unity among Protestants denominations is that they reject Catholicism as the way to follow Christ. Beyond that, the doctrinal differences among the thousands of Protestant congregations are endless to the point of absurdity."
Again, you are obviously moving beyond the truth for the sake of rhetorical impact. To assert that the 'unity' found in Protestantism consists only in a common rejection of Rome is itself absurd on its face. Protestants are united in their affirmation of the creeds - if not in fact, then at least in substance. Both the Anglican and the Primitive Baptist affirm belief in the Triune God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for instance. It is also false to baldly assert that Protestants reject Rome. Protestants maintain the witness against the abuses and corruptions in faith and practice which crept into the church by the beginning of the second millennium. With deference to my fundamentalist sistren and brethren, I would note that the PCUSA and many other denominations are engaged with Rome in ecumenical dialog. The Roman Church acknowledges Presbyterian baptism as valid, just as Presbyterians have always acknowledged Roman Catholic baptisms as valid. Protestants are united in the common faith of the catholic church down through the ages. They are united in many ways with our separated brethren (wink, wink) in the Roman Church - though on issues of ecclesial/papal authority, the definition of justification, the relationship of justification & sanctification, and a few other fundamental and substantive issues there are barriers yet to be overcome. However, at least in the Reformed tradition, even Calvin was willing to accept Papal authority, as adiaphora, if the substance of such issues as justification, worship and the sacraments were reformed according to Scripture and the patristic witness.
You are denigrating Protestants for the most invalid of reasons - reasons that in reality do not exist. As a postscript, I would note, as you are no doubt aware, that it is not only Protestants, but the entire Eastern Orthodox communion, that rejects the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
Folks are gravitating toward likeminded folks regardless of denominational labels or doctrinal peculiarities - by that, I mean orthodox Methodists and Presbyterians have far more in common with orthodox Roman Catholics - even when they debate issues that are leftover from the 1600's, than with 'liberals' or 'fundamentalists' or 'New Age/Mystic' types within their own traditions. So, you find the boundaries of 'denominations' or 'congregations' becoming fuzzier; brand-loyalty becoming weaker and a true spiritual, if not always organic, unity developing between those who confess faith in the triune God and can affirm the Apostle's Creed without crossing their fingers.
It would be like me running for office saying:I am sara dippity,a burly macho guy that wants to do good for you.It wouldn't take long before people would learn I was an older woman that lied about her sex.I bet I wouldn't get any votes and either should that person.We could bring politics as usual,to to a halt.
This article is as goofy as my post,but I am sending it off anyway.
Uh uh! Nope. I don't think so. These are rites. Rites means ritual not belief. They wear different vestments and have different practices but it's really not a denomination. Its not like they ever split off from Rome, they just developed organically as rites in their own cultures, with the Church of Rome as their head. But no these are not denominations IMHO. I am a Catholic of the Roman rite. Another may be a Catholic of the Coptic rite. We are both of the same Catholic Church that is based in Rome. Somebody correct me if I am wrong here.
As for the charismatics, or evanglical Catholics and the like, those are "movements" that are IN the Catholic Church. They just emphasize certain things. They are not spilt from the Catholic Church and not split from all other Catholics.
"But, supposing uniformity in essentials and in faith, the authority of the Church has never insisted on uniformity of rile; Rome has never resented the fact that other people have their own expressions of the same truths. The Roman Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all, but our fellow Catholics in the East have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to ours. Nor can we doubt that other rites too have many beautiful prayers and ceremonies which add to the richness of Catholic liturgical inheritance.
A list of Catholic rites:
The liturgical languages used by Catholics are:
1. Latin in the Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in parts of Dalmatia).
2. Greek in the Byzantine Rite (not exclusively).
3. Syriac in the Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites.
4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite.
5. Armenian by all the Churches of that rite.
6. Arabic by the Melchites (Byzantine Rite).
7. Slavonic by Slavs of the Byzantine Rite and (in Glagolitic letters) in the Roman Rite in Dalmatia.
8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite).
9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite).
All are Catholic!
Right. I would like to see the collective Protestant churches try to write a Universal Catechism like the one the RCC has. They could NOT do it because one denomination does not believe in water baptism, another goes to church on Saturday a third won't sing in church, some are Armenians, some Calvinists, some are pre-trib some post trib. The RCC has ONE Catechism, it is the NORM for of all Catholic beliefs about the Bible and Tradition.
Many of us christians fail to detect the "morality" of the roman catholic faith.
As to the number of Protestant denominations, what number should we use? 10,000, 20,000, 30,000...suggestions?<>
Am a "cradle" Methodist whose parents left this church in the 50's when it became infiltrated with top communist clergy promoting a vacuous so-called social gospel.Five years of Southern Baptist "once saved--always saved" plus endoftheworld datesetting Rapture nonsense was enough.Church of Christ really tried to get it right with weekly communion,accapella singing,and acceptance of reality one can lose salvation ie works/behavior matters.However Christianity "started" in the 1700's with the Alexander Campbell.
Have been Eastern Orthodox for fifteen years.I am welcomed at any ethnic parish as we share doctrine and all utilize the stirring 1600 year old Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom.Eucharist is served at each liturgy.The overwhelming beauty and mystery of the ancient sacraments,feasts,iconography,fasts,scripture readings,services and music are but thinly sketched in Protestantism.The subtle yet strong emphasis upon the remembrance of death and judgement gives strength to bear life's cross with courage and to constantly temper one's behaviour.
Please come,visit and worship with us next years Pascha service typically 2-4 wks after Western Easter---or anytime for that matter.
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.
Who gives a rip?
(besides this guy?)
#1, are you aware that individual priests can err?
#2, do you think that God is male? (Not Jesus, the Second Person, but the entire Godhead)
That's a funny question in the light of todays priest activities isn't it. :-)
#2, do you think that God is male? (Not Jesus, the Second Person, but the entire Godhead)
"Are you so dull that you don't realize that if you have seen me you have seen the Father".
If men tried to write a collective Protestant Catechisn like the RCC, it would be as disjointed and self-contradictory as the RCC catechism. For every difference in Protestant belief you can find, I can find contradictions in the RCC catechism.
I can also find for you hundreds of statements right out of the Catechism where everyday ordinary Catholics would say, "That's stupid, Catholics don't believe that!"
This is not a true observation...actually most protestants have greater agreement amoung themselves than there is between 6 Catholics standing in the same pew on Sunday...
Now I have bumped "non Catholics Christians " of several different traditions...and beleieve it or not..the FR wars aside...we have between 95-99% agreement ...the differences are eithor traditional or mildly doctrinal. (such as the order of salvation or infant baptism).
The word of God is so important to us we will go to the mat over one small thing.
I have RC family that are all over the map, most do not even think about the Bible or doctrine..they are traditional Catholics ..they inherited it with their eye color.
Now there are some protestants that are the same..but for the most part practicing Protestants are thoughful in matters of doctrine ..their church choice reflects that thought
What you call a rite we would call a denomation :>) Theresa there is actually little difference in what Protestants believe
At the far extreme you have the biggest difference in the belief over the cession of spiritual gifts...but you have that within the RC church too..
Uh ... Dave ... how many times did Jesus refer to God as "Father?"
You can do better than this.
So is my Govenor....nuf said
That said ... how many reps, govs, senators, etc. are non-Catholic and pro-choice?
<> OK, prove it :) <> I can also find for you hundreds of statements right out of the Catechism where everyday ordinary Catholics would say, "That's stupid, Catholics don't believe that!"
<> OK, prove it :): <> 27 posted on 9/25/02 10:12 AM Eastern by Onelifetogive
Methodists,Nazarene, Wesleyan...all have the same doctrine...the difference is mostly in the membership requirments, The AOG and the Calminian Baptists are also tied to them in doctrine except by a point of doctrine or so. Some of the churches like a formal worship and some not..
There are actually very few distinctives in the different Protestant churches ...but we are a stubborn people we want to have complete agreement with the doctrine and teaching of our churches on Sundays
an excellent point Mom - I can attest it is accurate from my limited experience having been raised in an Italian Catholic household. It was inherited with the family sauce recipe.
But doctrinally I can not throw out original sin as the Eastern rite does.....
It is that kind of a difference that Protestants look at when deciding on a church..
I guess they needed some word to express non-Roman Catholic Christian so they came up with "protestant." Whatever. I prefer non-Roman Cathoic Christian. Actually, only a low percentage of non-Roman Catholic Christian groups were involved in the reformation protests against Roman Catholicism.
The Assemblies of God, eg, didn't even exist in the reformation. NOR did the Methodists, Church of Christ, and Evangelical Free....and etc.
And I THINK that is even "high" if we are discussing doctrine...
for instance doctrinally your church has few distinctives with the other "Wesleyan" churches.(except you are more liberal:>)
Lots..but for most of them it is not a doctrinal breach..that was his point
When my sisters and I all left "the church" all my dad (who was "excommunicated" for marrying a divorced woman) could say is "we are a catholic family, we have always been a catholic family"...Well that has changed we are now a protestant family that has some Catholic relatives *grin*.
All of us "girls" have left.. and our families are for the most part non Catholic..
yep as I always tell you you are NOT a Protestant (except to the Catholics *grin*)
The correct term is "more sane." Have you ever tried to use the bible to prove the old holiness doctrine of sinless perfection? Those folks were way out of line biblically. They'd let their theology run far away from their bible.
Besides, you just might be surprised how really conservative I am.
Yes and I will tell you why..If they have a doctrinal "problem" with one or more of the points they have the option of other churches that better reflect their beliefs..Doctrine is very important to "observant" Protestants .Yes there are Sunday and holiday Protestants just as their are Catholics..But by and large they select their "Sunday" church with care ..
Yeah, I know that part. That's why they called Luther's, Calvin's, Henry's (although his wasn't doctrinal) and a very few others "protestants."
But why do you call "evangelical congregational" protestant? They didn't exist until 400 years later, they're not protesting anything, and they are only connected to those original groups through splinters of splinters of splinters.
If it's fair to trace splinters back, then it makes exactly as much sense to call them Roman Catholic.