I figure, I live in a Christian country, I might as well get my facts straight.
I am baffled by all the various Christian sects out there. I know that Catholics follow the Pope, and Protestants don’t, but what exactly are Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Evangelists, Pentocostals, etc? Are they subgroups within Catholism/Protestism, or something completely different?
And while we’re at it, what’s the difference between a priest, a minister, a pastor, and a reverend? (For that matter, why do all the jokes start with “A priest, a minister, and a rabbi…” instead of “A priest, an imam, and a rabbi…”?)
Sorry for any misspellings. I don’t have much occasion to write all those names.
…what exactly are Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Evangelists, Pentocostals, etc? Are they subgroups within Catholism/Protestism, or something completely different?
They are denominations within Protestantism. Probably all the info you need and then some here.
…what’s the difference between a priest, a minister, a pastor, and a reverend?
Each denomination has a customary term it uses for its clergy, so the difference is which denomination is being referred to. “Reverend” is also used as an honorific, so a minister might be called “Reverend Jones.”
For that matter, why do all the jokes start with “A priest, a minister, and a rabbi…” instead of “A priest, an imam, and a rabbi…”?
Because they come from a culture in which Catholics, Protestants, and Jews were fairly common, but Muslims were not.
“Protestantism” is a convenient catchall to include anybody not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. It includes the most liberal and most conservative churches. At the time the term was first applied, the Reformation, it had a clear meaning, but has since become so extended as to be largely meaningless.
Anglicans are people who attend churches where the Book of Common Prayer is used for services. Most but not all of them are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England (though like Orthodox patriarchs his authority over other churches in his communion is only one of moral leadership). The Episcopal Church is the major Anglican church in the U.S., though there have been splinter groups for the last 30 years. Anglicans claim to be a ‘bridge church’ between Protestantism and Catholicism. Led by bishops.
Presbyterians are officially Calvinist, run by synods of presbyters (elders = ministers), and are descended from Puritans who separated from the Church of England and from the Church of Scotland, which was Presbyterian. The Reformed churches are descended from European equivalents (Netherlands, Germany, etc.)
Lutherans, which often emphasize the term Evangelical, are the heirs of Martin Luther and his fellow Reformation theologians. Germans and Scandinavian heritage, but not exclusively.
Evangelicals (other than Lutherans) tend to be very conservative theologically, holding to Biblical inerrancy, fundamentalism, etc., and emphasize the importance of turning to Christ and repenting of sin.
Methodists grew out of John Wesley’s focus on a moral life and on preaching. Probably dead center theologically among the other groups.
Baptists hold to two principles: adult “believers baptism” by total immersion and the independence of the individual congregation. Everything else is up to the local church. Some of the most liberal local churches and many of the most conservative are Baptist. In the American South the Southern Baptist Convention, a union of Baptist churches that is very conservtive in doctrine, is dominant.
Pentecostals believe in the gift of tongues (glossolalia) and in an emotion-evoking style of worship. Nearly all of them are very conservative in terms of fundamentalism and Biblical inerrancy.
It almost seems impossible that you would not know that everything else you named (meaning religious groups or doctrinal tendencies, not titles) is a division or denomination of Protestantism (in one case, more of a movement). However, if you have just come to a “Christian country” (from an Islamic one, perhaps?) then it is quite understandable.
Protestantism is usually considered to date only as far back as the Sixteenth C., in Western Europe, with Martin Luther and later John Calvin and Zwingli starting their own movements. (Protestantism was divided movement almost from the start.) But earlier movements in Western Europe include those of Huss and Wycliffe, which were less successful. The main point was that Roman Catholicism had drifted from the Bible and was spiritually bankrupt. (Protestant slant, in my own words.) While Luther and his supporters had a dialogue with representatives from “the East” they felt that Eastern Orthodoxy had also drifted, perhaps just not as much.
The division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is older by several centuries. It is usually considered that 1054 is the date of the break. Actually there was a dispute in the 9th C. between a Patriarch (leading bishop of a large community) in the East and the Pope. This was eventually patched up, but the strain between West and East probably goes back even further. There were actually four “independent” (called “autocephalous”) Patriarchates in the East and then “Rome” (the one Western Patriarchate) and Rome was especially revered and considered a safe haven from multiple heresies that sprang up. More and more, though Rome became aggressive as the “Mother Church” and insisted that it could alone could select bishops for all the Church. Those in the East considered Rome to be adding “innovations,” which bordered on the heretical or were “clearly” heretical.
The other side of “1054” is that it resembled some sort of lover’s quarrel and could have been also patched up, especially early on. The break became stronger when Mark of Ephesus resisted the efforts of the Council of Florence.
(East and West interpret the history very differently, and that’s not very surprising.)
Still, many ordinary folks (laity) in the East didn’t perceive any real division. However when Crusaders passing through Constantinople indulged in slaughtering what they considered “heretics” for no longer following the Pope, a different mentality emerged among them.
I’m leaving the details of Protestantism to others. The history is even more involved, and there are almost countless divisions, even ignoring the ones from political splits.
I’m sure though, that TomnDebb and others will have some criticisms of my history lesson, such as it is. I don’t claim to be completely unbiased toward Orthodoxy, although I’ve found out through the years that there is more than one credible side to such stories.
Beyond, THAT, many may object that I am glossing over earlier divisions (Ancient “Heresies” as called by both E.O. and R.C.) and implying that there was only some United Catholic (“Universal”) Church, prior to the break. It actually is reasonable to a point, since there was remarkable doctrinal unity over a large geographical area, with “heresies” tending to be localized for a long while. (Mostly due to Church Councils uniting the local churches.) However, when one looks far enough back, there is reason to see that “Christianity” itself was a very divided movement at the start. There was considerable disagreement over the nature of Jesus himself. With a sharp look, one can even see doctrinal factions among the Apostles, although the pious tend to be blind to it.
A less pious interpretation is that the alleged original united Catholic Church was really a matter of one “Christianity” triumphing (largely, at least) over all other “Christianities” (plural). The triumphant one was the one to write all the true-doctrine books – and Church History as well.
That you for letting me confuse you even more. - Jack
[ul]
[li]Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it. [/li][li]Presbyterian: This shit was bound to happen. [/li][li]Episcopalian: It’s not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve the right wine with it. [/li][li]Methodist: It’s not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve grape juice with it. [/li][li]Congregationalist: Shit that happens to one person is just as good as shit that happens to another. [/li][li]Unitarian: Shit that happens to one person is just as bad as shit that happens to another. [/li][li]Lutheran: If shit happens, don’t talk about it. [/li][li]Fundamentalism: If shit happens to a televangelist, it’s okay. [/li][li]Calvinism: Shit happens because you don’t work hard enough. [/li][li]Seventh Day Adventism: No shit shall happen on Saturday. [/li][li]Creationism: God made all shit. [/li][li]Christian Science: Shit happening is all in your mind. [/li][li]Unitarianism: Come let us reason together about this shit. [/li][li]Quakers: Let us not fight over this shit. [/li][li]Jehovah’s Witnesses: May we have a moment of your time to show you some of our shit?[/li][/ul]
Not quite… The Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are not generally considered Protestant, and are certainly not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I think the same is also true of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh-Day Adventists. Then you’ve got groups like the Unitarians, who come from a Christian cultural background, but probably can’t be accurately described as Christians themselves.
And Jack, the Catholic-Orthodox distinction becomes even more muddled when you throw in the Eastern Catholic sects. These are sects which are theologically aligned with the Roman Catholic Church and recognize the primacy of the Pope, but which are culturally more like the Eastern Orthodox churches. And even the Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox schism isn’t complete: The Roman church recognizes all of the sacraments of the Eastern churches, and the Eastern churches, despite not recognizing the Pope as Primate of the Church, do recognize him as a bishop and patriarch.
I will offer one story of my youth that illustrates one difference. My father was teaching at a Lutheran school. When my aunt visited (she was a Baptist), my father took her on a tour of the school that included the chapel. There were statues around the chapel, and, because it was near Christmas, there was a statue of Mary on the altar. This enraged my aunt, who accused my father of idolatry, gathered her family and left, not to be seen for ten years.
Most of what we call “protestant” churches adhere to the Apostle’s Creedand the Nicene Creed, so it difficult to pin down specific differences (that’s not to say that differences don’t abound, just that understanding those differences can be difficult). Some of the differences have to do with eschatology (what will happen at the end of the world). For instance, look into Premillennialism and Postmillenialism. Once you start to get further afield (like Mormonism) you get more differences, but I can’t speak to those.
As you would expect from Anglicanism, the answer is “It depends.” Henry VIII probably considered himself a good Catholic to his dying day, and the theology of the Chuch of England under Henry didn’t deviate greatly from that of the Roman Catholic church - in his view, the dispute was mainly about church governance and the authority of the Pope. After all, he’s the man who wrote a treatise opposing Luther, for which the Pope gave him the title “Defender of the Faith,” still borne by Queen Elizabeth today.
If you define Protestantism as a rejection of the authority of the Pope, then certainly Anglicans are Protestant. But if you start going deeper into Protestant thology, into things like the priesthood of all believers and the Bible as the sole basis for authority, things get murkier.
Anglicans adhere to the doctrine of the apostolic succession as one of the sources of the Church’s authority, and also to some extent look to the writings of the patristic fathers and church traditions as sources of doctrine to supplement the Bible. The other Protestant churches that emerged from the Reformation mainly reject these points. On these two points, Anglicanism is similar to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
As an illustration of how the difference plays out, you can look at how Anglicanism regards the sacraments. The other Protestant groups either downplay sacramental theology, or recognize only two sacraments, communion and baptism, on the basis that the Bible records that Jesus initiated both of these sacraments. Anglicanism agrees that these are the two major sacraments, but also recognises five other sacraments, shared with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy: Confirmation, Marriage, Orders, Penance, and Extreme Unction. The other Protestant groups don’t recognise those as sacraments, since they are not mentioned in the Bible as such, but Anglicanism, in common with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, holds that these are sacraments established by the early church.
Sure, and the most interesting thing here is just what was allowed to further the Uniate movement.
Married priests is one thing. When one knows that priestly celibacy is not a doctrine, but rather a discipline, or practice, there really is no problem. The development in the West was not that it was horrible and heretical for a priest to be married, have sex, and become a father. It was just that priestly celibacy was considered a very good idea. It definitely does not go all the way back to the early Church, not even in the Western Patriarchate. And there have been exceptions made, such as when an Orthodox priest converts, or an Anglican (Episcopalian) minister.
But what I found hard to grasp was how the Uniates were allowed to retain the Nicean Creed without the Filioque, which was one major point of dispute.
But actually, I’d like to know more about the Uniates.
I know you guys are really dying to split hairs, but I take his statement to mean that he lives in a country where the majority of people identify as Christian. I don’t think he was trying to make any comments on the government or official status of religion in his country.
That I did not know, and it rather surprises me. Wasn’t the Filioque clause, at the time it arose, the biggest theological difference between the East and West? It seems a mighty big compromise.
Sometimes it’s easier to think of the various branches of Christianity as tribes or family branches, rather than organizations with rigid structures.
For example, Lutherans all trace back to Martin Luther, but various churches with “Lutheran” in their names range across the spectrum from fairly moderate to really conservative. They all use the same prayer book and their services feel similar, but that’s just scratching the surface.
Like any large family, you’ll see some of the bitterest divisions over things that, to an outsider, seem irrelevant, if not downright silly. To baptize someone, do you need to dunk them fully into the water, or is it okay to sprinkle some over their head? Is the Bible a book of stories that are supposed to make points, or is it a literal history? Is it okay if I participate in communion at your church, or is it for members only? Is marriage a permanent, unbreakable bond, or can two people who decided to marry later decide to un-marry?
Churches have split over those questions, and less.