What are the differences among Protestant denominations?

[jebert]

What are the things that fundamentally distinguish Lutherans from Methodists from Baptists from Presbyterians? Are they just practical things like how the pastors dress, or how they serve communion, or even whether or not they allow women to be pastors? Or are there deeper matters of faith that set them apart?

From my point of view it seems that perhaps Baptists tend to believe in the Bible more literally than the others, but any differences among the other three are not obvious to me, and I'd say a great majority of adherents to those denominations couldn't explain it accurately either.

Can aybody here help?

BTW, I'm looking for factual answers, but feel free to move this to GD if it suits you.

[dangermom]

I think it might be a little complicated to get into on a message board. Usually there are real doctrinal differences between denominations, which is why they split off from one another in the first place. Presbyterians and other Reformed sects believe in predestination, irresistible grace, and so on. Baptists believe that infant baptism is wrong, one should be older, and that baptism is a sign of receiving grace, not the vehicle thereof. Methodists are different again.

You should probably get a book or find denominational webpages. Religious Literacy probably isn't exactly what you're looking for, but it does have basic explanations of the major Protestant sects (as well as the basics of most faiths) in the back section.

[griffin1977]

Yeah, how much time have you got Its a huge panorama of beleives ranging for basically "Catholothism without the pope" (the Anglican "High Church") to beleifs so non-orthodox that many "mainstream" Christians would even dispute they are in fact Christian (Jehovahs Witnesses).

I imagine there is a reputable website somewhere that does a good job of listing them.

[Moirai]

Originally Posted by jebert

Or are there deeper matters of faith that set them apart?

Methodists take pot luck very seriously, although many Protestants do.

[kunilou]

There are way, WAY too many differences to go into here. The differences range from the fundamental (is the Bible literally true or a series of inspired stories?) to administrative (how much authority does a bishop have over an individual congregation?) to theological hair-splitting.

Here's a pretty good site to compare and contrast:

http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...ominations.htm

[Napier]

I think perhaps the biggest and most historically formative difference between Protestant denominations in the USA is between what were two major branches in the early 1600s. The Puritans came to New England starting in a big way in about 1631 when the Arbella carried many across. In, I think, the mid 1600s there were many Quakers lead by William Penn, settling in Pennsylvania and, eventually, spreading to the Pacific Northwest. The social flavors, even today, that these regions differ in is remarkable.

During that time, Puritan disapproval of Quakers was severe. IIRC it was a very serious crime in the Plimoth plantation to associate with Quakers.

I think Puritanism is characterized by an intense wish to purify what had been excesses of the Catholic Church. Protesting about something wrong with the Catholic Church is, really, what Protestantism is all about.

Quakerism is characterized by realizations first had by George Fox on Pendle Hill, when he recognized the "inner light", that spark of God in each individual which showed him the truth. Of course, the idea of a direct connection between the individual and God, without brokering by the Catholic Church, is a definitive feature of all Protestantism (and I think of Anabaptism before them).

Today Puritanism doesn't really stand in its original form, though Congregationalism (and I think I read Presbyterianism also) are descendents. Quakerism still exists and still credits Fox's ideas at their core, but numerically they are much less important today than 350 years ago.

FWIW an example of Puritan cooking is the seafood boil that more and more places are assembling into big pots to sell to tourists in beach resorts, and an example of Quaker cooking is cream cheese. You are, after all, what you eat.

[MadPansy64]

Oh, come ON! A "too long and complicated for a message board" question? Sheesh. We had seventy two bazillion pages on the plane on a treadmill question, but we suddenly don't have the time to discuss the differences in Christian sects?

Any other time, we'd all be jumping in with half-assed guesses, vague recollections, anecdotes, bad but pointed jokes, and and snark about the vagueness of the question!

To answer the OP:

As far as I can tell (disclaimer: I am not a scholar, nor am I Christian. I just have a lot of relatives who have embraced different doctrines) it's all in the details. All Christian sects believe in Jesus and heaven. They have slightly different rules for getting to heaven, and make the most of those differences.

My relatives (we're rural and of Irish extraction. There are lots of "us") are fond of details. The Church of Christ contigent thinks vanity is the most important mortal sin. The Catholic branch thinks penance makes up for venial sins. The Baptists are all over the board, but none acknowledge the Pope as especially Graced. The Lutherans & Presbyterians are calmer than the rest. The Mormons are . . . Hell, I dunno. I've never had to sit by them at Thanksgiving. Something to do with salvation by proxy, and Missouri.

You might get better responses by asking more detailed questions (what is the difference between Lutheran and Presbyterian, or Baptist and Church of Christ, or Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), or explaining your background.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by Napier

I think Puritanism is characterized by an intense wish to purify what had been excesses of the Catholic Church. Protesting about something wrong with the Catholic Church is, really, what Protestantism is all about.

The Puritans wanted to purify the Anglican church. King James I wasn't keen--they harangued him a bit, so he threw them out and they went to Holland, where they imagined religious tolerance would allow them to build their own society. Unfortunately for them, there were lots of other groups getting tolerated, and their kids were becoming too Dutch, so they went someplace where they could build a city on a hill all by themselves.

[Nava]

Sometimes (the smallest "mini churches") there doesn't seem to be so much a difference in theology as simply a different pastor. For the larger ones, there are differences in theology and in organization.

Sometimes, the splits have come not so much from theology as from politics, whether national (Church of England schism, before that the schism between Roma and Constantinople) or at a more local level (those mini churches are the extreme example). Sometimes, those splits which started from politics have ended up with differences in theology, as the Traditions of each of those splintered groups evolved differently.

[Krokodil]

Here's how it was explained to me:

Baptists are Pentecostals with indoor plumbing

Presbyterians are Baptists with lawns

Methodists are Presbyterians with sedans

Lutherans are Methodists with stock portfolios

Episcopalians are Lutherans with yachts

Can you tell I was raised Catholic?

[Eureka]

In theory, Methodist theology should not be all that different from Catholic theology, since the roots of Methodism come from John Wesley and the Anglican Church--which split off from Rome over political rather than religious issues. (That's the whole Henry the Eighth thing--he wanted a divorce, the Pope wouldn't grant it, he split the Church of England off from Rome.) John Wesley didn't start out to creat a new church, he started out studying the Bible in a methodical way (hence Methodist), and preaching to the poor coal miners--a group largely ignored by the Anglicans in that time frame. The poor coal miners demanded Communion, so Wesley ended up ordaining ministers--wishing all the while that he could stay in the Anglican fold. But in the end, it didn't work.

In practice, a significant percentage of Methodists today are ex-Catholics. And my grasp of theology is weak enough not to be able to tell you what the theoretical issues between Methodists, Anglicans and Catholics are.

But in practice, Methodists permit women to be ordained, and permit them to fill the higher ranks of the church heirarchy as well. Methodists serve Communion "at an open table, so that all who wish to recieve of its blessing, whether members of this church, any church or no church are welcome". Methodists also tend to be more flexible about whether the people getting married or the members of their wedding party share the church's beliefs than say the Catholics are.

And there's the food thing, although as someone who has almost always attended United Methodist churches, (Methodists picked up the United in the Sixties, I think, from a join with the Evangelical United Brethren Church), the way Methodists treat food strikes me as normal, and I don't know how other churches do it.

Oh, and music. I have tended to attend Methodist churches with good organists, good choirs, good music in general--often including bell choirs. I have the impression that good music is common to Methodist churches, though it's probably not universal. And no, belonging to a church which has good music doesn't mean the congregation sings along loudly early on Sunday morning.

[Thudlow Boink]

It's even more complicated than you probably think. For instance, there aren't just Baptists; there are the Southern Baptists, the General Baptists, and maybe a few other Baptist denominations.

[sciurophobic]

Which denominations are similar enough in their mode of worship that a follower of one could attend services at a church of another and not think it bizarre?

[Eureka]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

It's even more complicated than you probably think. For instance, there aren't just Baptists; there are the Southern Baptists, the General Baptists, and maybe a few other Baptist denominations.

And differences caused by geography, as much as anything else--Methodists in the Bible Belt are more like Baptists than Methodists where I grew up in Minnesota(a heavily Lutheran area). Methodists west of the Mississippi are more likely to be supportive of Gay rights/Gay clergy etc. than Methodists east of the Mississippi. I doubt this is unique to Methodism, but I'll admit to not being as well informed of the quirks of other denominations as I am to those of Methodism--and I'll deny being well-informed there, either.

[Nava]

So... how do Methodists treat food, Eureka?

[Dinsdale]

I'm a devout atheist, and it has been more than a decade since I did any serious study of various religions. But my recollection/understanding is that there are historically significant theological differences between most mainstream protestant religions. My impression, however, is that these historical distinctions are of little or no relevance to the overwhelming majority of present-day protestants. Instead, the denominations seem somewhat more differentiated on a political/social continuum. (Or, which church is most convenient, has the most entertaining minister/pastor, etc.)

Note - this is in extremely general terms, by an outsider, who repeatedly got the impression that the majority of professed believers knew and cared quite little about the historical and theological nuances of their own faith. I don't understand that attitude, but if it is good enough for them, who am I to say they are wrong?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by dangermom

Baptists believe that infant baptism is wrong, one should be older, and that baptism is a sign of receiving grace, not the vehicle thereof. Methodists are different again.

I thought that was Anabaptists.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by Eureka

But in practice, Methodists permit women to be ordained, and permit them to fill the higher ranks of the church heirarchy as well. Methodists serve Communion "at an open table, so that all who wish to recieve of its blessing, whether members of this church, any church or no church are welcome". Methodists also tend to be more flexible about whether the people getting married or the members of their wedding party share the church's beliefs than say the Catholics are.

I'm a Methodist. At least in the churches I've attended, the open communion table is the big doctrinal difference from other churches. Basically, everyone is welcome to join the communion.

Really, Baptists are Anabaptist. It's confusing.

[VunderBob]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

Here's how it was explained to me:

Baptists are Pentecostals with indoor plumbing

Presbyterians are Baptists with lawns

Methodists are Presbyterians with sedans

Lutherans are Methodists with stock portfolios

Episcopalians are Lutherans with yachts

Can you tell I was raised Catholic?

Lutheranism: All the liturgy of Catholicism, and none of the guilt.

[thelurkinghorror]

One major division is between Arminianism and Calvinism. The former are Methodists and other denominations, and they emphasize free will in salvation. Calvinists are Presbyterians and Congregationalists and churches with Reformed in their name, among others, and emphasize predestination and the rest of their five points.

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by VunderBob

Lutheranism: All the liturgy of Catholicism, and none of the guilt.

Plus all the drinking!

[Eureka]

Originally Posted by Nava

So... how do Methodists treat food, Eureka?

Apparently, Methodists can't hold a church function without having food. Be it an after the service coffee hour (with cookies and stuff), a pot luck dinner, a bake sale, or some other sort of event.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by VunderBob

Lutheranism: All the liturgy of Catholicism, and none of the guilt.

Episcopalianism contrasted with Catholicism: Gilt without the guilt.

I'm Episcopalian. We're the American branch of the Church of England, which split from the C. of E. after the American Revolution. We tend to like pomp and circumstance in our liturgy. We tend to be socially liberal. We're more inclined to take a "Whatever you think is fine unless the Bible expressly forbids it" approach to dogma. We don't doctrinally believe in transubstantiation (that the bread and wine of communion are actually the body and blood of Christ). We don't excommunicate or shun anyone. We believe in the "three-legged stool" of Scripture, reason and tradition.

Our church governance is highly democratic: each parish church elects its own vestry (lay governing council), and the vestry selects a rector or priest by vote after choosing from various candidates. We elect our bishops on a regional basis, and indirectly the presiding bishop for the entire country. We look to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the C. of E., as the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, but he can't give orders the way the Pope can to Catholics. Right now, alas, we're riven on the issues of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex relationships (I have no objection to either). We're also smaller but wealthier than most other flavors of American Protestantism.

I've been an Episcopalian all my life, and I love it.

[bienville]

Anybody capable of providing a "Family Tree" or know of any link to a graph-type representation of the history of one group splitting off from another?

For me, charts of this type help to provide perspective. Reference for a quick glance at which groups broke directly from the Roman Catholic Church, which groups broke with groups that had broken with the Roman Catholic Church, which groups trace back to COE, which groups trace back to Martin Luther, which groups started in Europe, which groups started in America, etc., etc., etc.



Is it clear what I'm asking for in terms of a Family Tree type chart? What would be great would be if someone knew of one already in existence somewhere on the net- even if I had the info, I wouldn't know how to code it for a messageboard post.

[VunderBob]

Originally Posted by bienville

Anybody capable of providing a "Family Tree" or know of any link to a graph-type representation of the history of one group splitting off from another?

Here ya go.

Left out of this is the fact that all other forms of Protestantism sort of owe a debt to Luther, because before him, attempts to reform or break away from the Catholic Church ended in execution of heretics and the end of the movement

[Chronos]

Some of the differences which can show up between the various sects:

Who's in charge of the Church? The Pope? The patriarchs (including the Patriarch of Rome, AKA the Pope) collectively? Individual bishops? Individual pastors? The entire people collectively?

What are the requirements to be ordained as a minister (whatever you call them)? Does the church follow the Apostolic Succession (i.e., the Apostles were the original priests, and a priest must be ordained by another priest, in a line extending back to the Apostles)? Are women allowed to be priests? What about married men?

What is necessary for salvation? Are good deeds alone sufficient? How about faith alone? Or is it purely a matter of divine grace, handed out by God as He alone sees fit? Some sort of combination of these?

How is God's grace granted to humans? Is it through a specific set of sacraments, and if so, how many are there, and what are they?

Specifically, what is the role of the Eucharist? Is it merely a symbolic reminder, or is there a real presence of Christ in it? If there is a real presence of Christ, does it take the form of being of the substance of His body and blood? And is this in addition to, or instead of, the substance of ordinary bread and wine?

What is the role of scripture? Should it be taken literally, or should some parts be taken figuratively? If so, which parts? For that matter, what is scripture? Is Maccabes, for instance, part of the Bible?

Plus many other questions, which I can't think of offhand.

[BrainGlutton]

An Episcopalian is a Presbyterian with a trust fund.

A Presbyterian is a Methodist with a college education.

And a Methodist is a Baptist with shoes.

[Keeve]

To this Jew (and others) a significant difference between the many Christian denominations is how they view the concept of the Trinity.

At one extreme there are those denominations which seem very polytheistic (I'll not name any, so as not to stir up ill will, and I'd probably be mistaken anyway). At the other extreme are those who reject the divinity of Jesus, such as Unitarianism.

[bienville]

Originally Posted by VunderBob

Here ya go.

Hey, that pretty good- thanks!
I had never heard of Pietism or the Holiness Movement- off now to their Wiki pages.


It doesn't address anything that traces back to Constantinople. Was there ever anything akin to the Protestant Reformation growing out of the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

Or is there no difference between the various Eastern Churches save for minor differences in tradition amongst the ethnic background of the various adherents- i.e. is the only difference between Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, etc. that the Greeks are Greek, the Russians are Russian, the Ukrainians are Ukrainian, etc.?

[bienville]

Originally Posted by Keeve

At the other extreme are those who reject the divinity of Jesus, such as Unitarianism.

Unitarianism is not dogmatic. Actually, I think the first paragraph of the Wiki entry is a pretty good "in a nutshell" kind of a sum-up so I'll quote it.

Unitarian Universalism is a theologically liberal religion characterized by its support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.

The religious beliefs of Unitarians vary widely from person to person. Even if there is no single Unitarian who accepts the divinity of Jesus, it still would be inaccurate to say that Unitarians "reject the divinity of Jesus" since Unitarians do not speak en masse on any Theology.

[Pleonast]

Originally Posted by bienville

since Unitarians do not speak en masse on any Theology.

So Unitarians are not very unitary?

[Nars Glinley]

Originally Posted by Eureka

The poor coal miners demanded Communion, so Wesley ended up ordaining ministers--wishing all the while that he could stay in the Anglican fold. But in the end, it didn't work.

You mean that Wesley couldn't keep the Methodists in the Anglican fold, right? Because it sounds like you're saying that Wesley was a Methodist, which I'm pretty sure he never was.

And you (not you Eureka) don't mess with Methodist potlucks. They're to die for.

[A shameful cracka...]

Originally Posted by Eureka

Apparently, Methodists can't hold a church function without having food. Be it an after the service coffee hour (with cookies and stuff), a pot luck dinner, a bake sale, or some other sort of event.

At my Methodist Church, every Sunday they have a bunch of cookies, brownies, and sometimes baklava outside the hall where we have our services. I think it's the only reason my 7 year old agrees to go to church.

[Eureka]

Originally Posted by KRM

You mean that Wesley couldn't keep the Methodists in the Anglican fold, right? Because it sounds like you're saying that Wesley was a Methodist, which I'm pretty sure he never was.

My understanding, confirmed by this cite* is that Wesley was a Methodist, it's just that what the word Methodist meant at that point is not the same as what it means now.

The Methodist branch of protestant religion traces its roots back to 1739 where it developed in England as a result of the teachings of John Wesley. While studying at Oxford, Wesley, his brother Charles, and several other students formed a group devoted to study, prayer and helping the underprivileged. They were labelled "Methodist" by their fellow students because of the way they used "rule" and "method" to go about their religious affairs.

It is my impression that Wesley spent a lot of his time preaching to people who weren't really inside the Anglican fold--the Anglicans of his time couldn't be bothered to reach out to the poor. Both John and Charles--better known for his hymn-writing-- were ordained ministers in the Church of Enland, but were unpopular with the church leadership, because of their evangelism. Methodism really started out as a social movement.

But take all these comments with a grain of salt--rather than as overly authoritative comments, please, I need to deal with stuff in real life, and don't have time to properly refresh my memory.
*I picked this cite to checkout over wikipedia for reasons which now escape me--maybe I missed the "about" in the URL--now is not a good time for me to go looking for better cites.

[Napier]

Chronos, the differences you raise don't sound very Protestant. The Pope?

Dangermom, thank you for the correction.

So, at least one thing nice about the Puritans was that they were fairly freeminded and easygoing about sex, certainly relative to what their reputation suggests. They appreciated the pleasures of sex, as long as it was within marriage. Even before marriage, they allowed bundling, in which the dating youths were permitted to share a bed for the night. They did have to remain physically separated, for example by a bundling board. But they also joked about knotholes. They also gave young lovers talking sticks, which were tubes something like a half meter or a meter long. The young man would visit the young lady, and the whole family would be sitting before the fire, say. But the young lovers would hold the stick between them and whisper to one another through it, so that they could have a private conversation. I think that they were more permissive in practice than most modern American parents want to be (though enforcement is admittedly more than an equalizer). They do not deserve being used as an example of absurdly strict sexual mores.

[Chronos]

Chronos, the differences you raise don't sound very Protestant. The Pope?

Right, I was trying to answer the slightly broader question of the differences between all Christian denominations. Catholicism can be regarded as just another sect that fits somewhere into that framework. Obviously, for most of the non-Catholic demoninations, the answer to "Who's in charge?" isn't "The Pope".

[Ponderoid]

Originally Posted by sciurophobic

Which denominations are similar enough in their mode of worship that a follower of one could attend services at a church of another and not think it bizarre?

I was raised New England Congregationalist, with occasional lengthy sojourns to Methodist and Presbyterian churches as my family moved from place to place around the U.S. and they picked closer churches to attend. The services of all three were very similar. I was too young to pick up on theological differences, save that I did note the Presbyterians were heavy on the predestination business while Congregationalists were not.

After I left home, I became an agnostic, flipflopping between the relaxed and militant forms. In the midst of one such flipflop, I heard a bit about the doctrine of the Unitarian-Universalists, and I gave them a try. The services of the two different UU churches I tried in the Dallas area were almost identical in form to the services of the CT and IN Congregationalists I recalled from my childhood. The only real difference was the content of the sermons, and they changed the words to some of the songs. It was kind of eerie; I was expecting something totally different.

*** Ponder

[Mister Rik]

Originally Posted by Pleonast

I'm a Methodist. At least in the churches I've attended, the open communion table is the big doctrinal difference from other churches. Basically, everyone is welcome to join the communion.

The Foursquare Church I attend also has an open communion table (literally - the pastor breaks the bread and pours the "wine", and then everybody files to the front and helps themselves). I'm not sure if that's a denominational thing, though, or if it's just the way my pastor prefers to do it. The Foursquare Church (or, more accurately, "International Church of the Foursquare Gospel") seems to grant individual pastors a lot of autonomy: stick to the basic doctrine, but otherwise preach what and how you want.

[kunilou]

You can't always tell which church you're in by the services.

Different congregations of the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian-Universalist churches have wildly different services, ranging from the most traditional to the farthest out.

On the other hand all Lutheran churches have virtually identical liturgies, but the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America have some fairly significant doctrinal differences, to the point where the LCMS does not consider itself to be "in fellowship" with the ELCA.

[Zoe]

Not all Presbyterians believe in predestination and I've never heard of "irresistible grace." Spent my first two years in a church related college as a religious education major. I think I would be familiar with the term if it were common to our denomination. Perhaps we use it in another form. I'm a Cumberland Presbyterian. We've been around for almost 200 years. There are other divisions within the Presbyterian Church too.

By the way, the "Methodist" Church disappeared in the 1960s. It's the "United Methodist" Church.

We do baptize babies or adults. A few drops of water on the head is sufficient.
We believe in the priesthood of all believers. That means that at communion, another church member can pass the bread and the wine to you (as in the ending to Places in the Heart.

We believe that you are redeemed by the grace of God through the death of Jesus. And once you are "saved," you will not be lost again. That doesn't mean that you won't be sinful. Everyone fails to be perfect. It just means that your Redeemer doesn't let go of you.

I personally believe that everyone has been redeemed and there will be a way of "being" beyond death that is different from anything that we have imagined. I also believe there are many ways to find this place of "being" or even "non being."

But there are also Cumberland Presbyterians who are much more conservative. We are a mixed lot!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Pleonast

So Unitarians are not very unitary?

What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness?

Something that knocks on your door for no particular reason!

[Wendell Wagner]

Krokodil writes:

> Baptists are Pentecostals with indoor plumbing
>
> Presbyterians are Baptists with lawns
>
> Methodists are Presbyterians with sedans
>
> Lutherans are Methodists with stock portfolios
>
> Episcopalians are Lutherans with yachts

BrainGlutton writes:

> An Episcopalian is a Presbyterian with a trust fund.
>
> A Presbyterian is a Methodist with a college education.
>
> And a Methodist is a Baptist with shoes.

I realize that these are mostly intended as jokes, but they are now rather old-fashioned jokes. Something vaguely like this was true sixty years old, but it's much less true these days. The claim is that in many towns the differences between the denominations was mostly based upon income. In such towns, as you became more wealthy, you would change from one church to another. Furthermore, notice that the two hierarchies given here are contradictory, since Krokodil's says:

Episcopalians > Lutherans > Methodists > Presbyterians > Baptists > Pentacostals

in regard to average income, while BrainGlutton's says:

Episcopalians > Presbyterians > Methodists > Baptists

in regard to average income.

In fact, even back in the days when something like this was true, there were a lot of local differences in this. In some towns the average incomes of different denominations was quite different, while in other towns there wasn't much difference, while in other towns the ranks on the hierachy were different. But in any case the whole hierarchy is much less true these days. People now feel less obligation to change churches as they become more wealthy. I'm not sure why this is true. Partly it's because belonging to a particular church is not considered a necessary part of belonging to a particular social group anymore. It's now more accepted that in becoming part of a higher income group your church attendance is less a part of your social obligations to your friends of that income level.

Eureka writes:

> In practice, a significant percentage of Methodists today are ex-Catholics.

Cite? Of course, there is a certain amount of changing denominations going on, but I don't know that there is any particular tendency for ex-Catholics to become Methodists. Do you have any statistics showing that, other than the usual small amounts of shuffling from one denomination to another, there is any significant tendency for ex-Catholics to become Methodists?

Zoe writes:

> By the way, the "Methodist" Church disappeared in the 1960s. It's the "United
> Methodist" Church.

True, since as Eureka pointed out, the Methodists and the Evangelical United Brethen united to form the United Methodists in 1968, but it's pretty common to informally refer to the combined denomination as Methodists.

[Polycarp]

There are so many different questions involved in giving a definitive answer to the thread-title question that it becomes very difficult to essay a coherent and detailed answer.

The assortment of questions which Chronos raised give some examples of the issues involved. That said, as a convert from Methodism to Episcopalianism, I'd ratify Elendil's Heir's post in detail.

Methodism was in origin a system for spiritual growth through methodical small prayer and study groups, within the Church of England. The split came when the Bishop of London refused to ordain Methodist preachers with the requisite training to the priesthood. John Wesley himself and his brother Charles always considered themselves to be loyal CoE members until their dying days, and are commemorated on the American Episcopal Church calendar of saints.

Orthodoxy did not have the equivalent of a Protestant Reformation -- the splits there were in the nature of the equivalent of "Mel Gibson Catholicism": traditionalist and reactionary, like the Russian "Old Believers" who considered adopting the Gregorian Calendar to be going into apostasy, for example.

Orthodoxy, like Anglicanism, consists of autonomous national churches with at-least-theoretically identical dogmatic theology, in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (the one place where you don't use "Istanbul"). The difference between,e.g., the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox is in the nationality of the worshippers and the language used in worship, not in the theology or, generally, in the praxis of how the liturgy is conducted.

That said, there is one major line dividing Orthodoxy: the Syrian Orthodox, (Jacobite), Armenian, Coptic Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox and one group of the Mar Thoma Christians of South India all took the Monophysite position during one of the Fourth Century Ecumenical Councils, and have officially been separated from the rest of the Orthodox ever since -- though both theologiclly and in practice the two groups have been growing together.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Keeve

To this Jew (and others) a significant difference between the many Christian denominations is how they view the concept of the Trinity....

Thomas Jefferson, nominally Episcopalian although more inclined to Deism, although often asked by friends to serve as godfather for their children, always declined. The Sage of Monticello would apologetically note that godparents were required to attest to their belief in the Trinity and, as he wrote, “I had never sense enough to comprehend [it], and it has always appeared to me that comprehension must precede assent.” If the man who was arguably the most brilliant ever to live in the White House was baffled by the concept of the Trinity, we who struggle with it today are in very good company.

FWIW, noteworthy Episcopalians have included George Washington, FDR (in fact, more presidents were Episcopalian than any other faith, IIRC), Fred Astaire, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Duke Ellington and John Steinbeck.

[dangermom]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Not all Presbyterians believe in predestination and I've never heard of "irresistible grace." Spent my first two years in a church related college as a religious education major. I think I would be familiar with the term if it were common to our denomination. Perhaps we use it in another form. I'm a Cumberland Presbyterian. We've been around for almost 200 years. There are other divisions within the Presbyterian Church too.

I got that from the usual definition of Presbyterianism's defining beliefs, shortened into the handy acronym of TULIP:

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace, and
Perseverance of the saints.

These points come from the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618-1619, and are called the Five Articles Against the Remonstrants, or the Canons of Dordt.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

FWIW, noteworthy Episcopalians have included ... FDR ....

FDR served as a Vestryman (=parish council/official board/session member) for the parish church in Hyde Park NY during his entire presidency right up until his death, and, though usually missing meetings for obvious reasons, took the job seriously.

One of the hilariously poignant touches in Churchill's History of World War II involve a Churchillian visit to the White House during which dinner with Soviet Ambassador Litvinov (atheist and ethnically a Jew) that turned into an impromptu bit of proselytizing where FDR and Churchill (a nominal CoE member) were exhorting Litvinov to become a Christian. Churchill afterwards jokingly told FDR that if he failed to win reelection, he would nominate him for Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Eureka]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

Eureka writes:

> In practice, a significant percentage of Methodists today are ex-Catholics.

Cite? Of course, there is a certain amount of changing denominations going on, but I don't know that there is any particular tendency for ex-Catholics to become Methodists. Do you have any statistics showing that, other than the usual small amounts of shuffling from one denomination to another, there is any significant tendency for ex-Catholics to become Methodists?

You've reversed my intended cause and effect--I think. And my only cite is that the pastor of the church I joined last year said so--and I've known a number of Methodist ex-Catholics myself. Although limited exposure and confirmation bias no doubt play roles in my belief. Significant percentage may well equal ten percent or so, I'm sure the pastor gave a specific number (which may have been congregation specific rather than universal).

Still, my intent was less to say that many ex-Catholics become Methodists, as it is to say that a significant amount of new Methodists ( or people who attend Methodist churchs for a long time without actually joining) are ex-Catholics because many ex-Catholics leave the Catholic church due to frustration with various policies associated with the Catholic church--such as Thou Shalt Attend Mass Every Sunday and Thou Shalt Not Take Communion Unless . . . , whereas the United Methodist church is Fun to attend, does not generally give you grief if you skip church during the summer months, and allows anyone who wants to take Communion.

[Wendell Wagner]

Interesting, but I'd still like to see some statistics, since I suspect that you're working from too small a sample.

[bienville]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Orthodoxy did not have the equivalent of a Protestant Reformation -- the splits there were in the nature of the equivalent of "Mel Gibson Catholicism": traditionalist and reactionary, like the Russian "Old Believers" who considered adopting the Gregorian Calendar to be going into apostasy, for example.

Orthodoxy, like Anglicanism, consists of autonomous national churches with at-least-theoretically identical dogmatic theology, in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (the one place where you don't use "Istanbul"). The difference between,e.g., the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox is in the nationality of the worshippers and the language used in worship, not in the theology or, generally, in the praxis of how the liturgy is conducted.

That said, there is one major line dividing Orthodoxy: the Syrian Orthodox, (Jacobite), Armenian, Coptic Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox and one group of the Mar Thoma Christians of South India all took the Monophysite position during one of the Fourth Century Ecumenical Councils, and have officially been separated from the rest of the Orthodox ever since -- though both theologiclly and in practice the two groups have been growing together.

Thanks for the info . . . off now to research what a "Monophysite" is.

[Pushkin]

I blocked out a lot of religious education at a young age, so in my twenties, I didn't know either. So I, atheist born to a Catholic family, asked a friend, athiest born to a Protestant family what the difference was. His succinct answer was that each of them at least knew themselves to be superior to the rest and all superior to Roman Catholicism.

I still don't know how the Churches of England and Ireland fit into all this, I'm too embarrassed but somehow also couldn't care enough to ask if they're Catholic, Protestant or inbetween.