I’m wondering sincerely, do those “churches” differ significantly from each other in a doctrinal sense? If not, why are they not simply united under one church with one name?
It’s a sincere question because it really seems to me that it can’t be had both ways: either these groups have serious theological differences or they don’t, but don’t unite under one name for their church for, well it seems to me for reasons of pride. They all like their individual name the best.
Either way it doesn’t look too good for them.
The Bible is full of churches with different names. There’s nothing wrong with that.
As far as doctrinal differences, I don’t think there’s anything significant in them. They all state that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ without the requirement of works.
Some of the denominations have a greater emphasis on missions. Some are located in different cities. Some have a different style of worship.
It doesn’t matter if they’re separate entities. Churches don’t save anyway so there’s no need for a top heavy hierarchy.
Besides, it hasn’t worked out so well for the Catholic church to be all under one head. There MAY be, officially, unity in doctrine, but the levels of corruption and immorality which exist within the church, show that being unified doctrinally is just a show as there is no church discipline going on. Too much covering their behinds going on.
Why should anyone look at the Catholic church and consider it superior in light of the abusive priests scandal, and the fact that the clergy is outright ignoring the Church’s own teachings by continuing to give communion to those who are in rebellion to it?
What advantage is there to being *unified* all under one governing entity?
Tell me why it’s superior.
You REALLY want to go here?