What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah’s Witness?
Something that knocks on your door for no particular reason! 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting, but I’d still like to see some statistics, since I suspect that you’re working from too small a sample.
Thanks for the info . . . off now to research what a “Monophysite” is.
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.
It depends on how you define Catholic and Protestant.
If by Protestant, you mean a church that historically broke with Rome during the Reformation period, then Anglicanism is clearly Protestant.
But if you define it doctrinally, things get fuzzier. Some Anglican doctrine is small-c catholic, for example the principle of the apostolic succession and some aspects of sacramental theology.
And if you look at current conceptions of church organization, Anglicanism bears considerable similarities to Orthodox churches, such as the concept of autonomous regional churches sharing common traditions and beliefs, but not a unified church authority.
As did Washington for his church, throughout the Revolution. I wrote an article on it once.
The FDR/Churchill divine services aboard HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 drew upon both the Church of England and Episcopalian liturgies.
I was raised a catholic, but have on occasion attended other church services. Here are the differences & similarities I noticed:
Lutheran (ECLA-type) – almost none at all, up till Communion time. They used tiny little plastic cups of wine, while my catholic church used a common chalice (but only on special occasions back then – normally, Communion was only the bread. Now they do both every Sunday). Also, Lutheran Communion seemed to be given only once a month or so (you had to sign up in advance!), while it happened in every catholic mass, and most attendees took communion every time. But the prayers, readings, etc. seemed nearly identical. And the songs were semi-different: about half were ones I recognized from catholic choirs, but half were completely new to me.
Episcopalian (Anglican) – even more like Catholic. Nothing about the service, readings, etc. that I noticed as different at all. But the priest’s vestments seemed fancier, choir robes were more elegant, and the church itself was less ornate than the catholic church, but made of a bit higher grade materials – better wood in the pews, for example. A bit of difference in the congregation – they seemed to be more dressed up than the catholic congregation. Even more difference in the parking lot – newer and/or more expensive cars. No pickup trucks at all.
Methodist – again, quite similar to the catholic church. Songs more different. They seemed to hurry through the service a bit, so they could have a longer sermon. Lots more hanging around in the vestibule before & especially after the service, to gossip and talk. Almost seemed like the church service was just a prelude to this social event!
Baptist – didn’t seem like a church service at all – just a preacher haranguing everybody endlessly. A few readings, some songs; but obviously the preaching was the main part of this service.
Wisconsin-synod Lutheran offshoot – weirdly different. Men sat on one side, women on the other. Hardly any service at all, just preaching. But it was hard to tell who the preacher was. Started with one person, then others jumped up and took over for a while. I thought some people were having a fit in the pews – turned out that was normal behavior – they were ‘speaking in tongues’. It was explained to me on the way home that they were inspired and were speaking in a holy language unknown to humans. (Except that they weren’t – one person near me was reciting a declension of Latin verbs that I recognized from my beginning Latin class years before. When I said that, I was told that I was unable to recognize this inspired language because of my lack of faith!) To a kid from a catholic background, seemed more like a visit to a carnival than a church service.
Others (Jewish, Buddist, etc.) – I’ve only been to Weddings or Funerals, which are not a typical service, so I can’t compare them.
You’re confusing Unitarian Universalism (which was the Wiki entry you cited) with Unitarianism (which was what I was referring to). Here’s from the first paragraph of the Wiki entry on Unitarianism:
Those aren’t even the defining beliefs of Calvinism, from which Presbyterianism grew theologically. The Synod of Dordrecht, IIRC, was a reactionary attempt at doctrinal purification of Calvinism. You could call those the defining beliefs of conservative or orthodox Calvinism. I don’t know if Mainstream American Presbeterianism has ever embraced those doctrines, but I doubt you could find a single member (lay or clergy) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) [the largest presbyterian denomination in the US) who would unreservedly endorse all of them today. Smaller Presbyterian/Reformed churches certainly do. The majority of Calvinists (especially orthodox, predestinarian Calvinists) in the US today are almost certainly members of Baptist churches. Calvinism was at one time a very strong influence in the Anglican Episcopalian church (see PURITANS). The Baptists were basically Puritans who cross-pollinated with Anabaptists (also strongly influenced by Calvin) in Holland.
Re Puritans, BTW, it is false that Anglicans split from Catholics over political issues. It may have been politics that led Henry VIII to announce the split, but the English church agreed to it because many influential priests had been personally very influenced by the writings of continental Protestants and were eager for their own Reformation. The most radical of these became Puritans. The Anglican and Episcopalian churches are MUCH closer to Catholicism now (and have been for about 100 yrs) than they were, say, when John Wesley began the Methodist movement. (So, for that matter, is Methodism.)
Going back to the big picture, The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) are probably the two main “big tent” churches in the US. They cover a huge swath of mainstream, middle of the road Protestantism, with lots of regional and individual variation in worship and doctrine. If you see a “generic” Protestant church service on TV or in a movie, it’s probably the sort of thing you’d see in a Methodist or Presbyterian service. Both denominations also have a fairly powerful but largely invisible national structure that is run more or less on a corporate/political model. They make sure that churches get pastors, that national projects get funded and carried out, that disputes get resolved, that poorer churches get support and wealthier churches pay support, and they make a lot of pronouncements about political and doctrinal issues that no one pays any attention to.
Baptist churches are more uniformly conservative, both doctrinally and socially. They reject infant baptism and place a bigger emphasis on being “saved.” They are also much more decentralized, with national structures that foster doctrinal unity and fund national projects, but don’t have any actual authority. Most conservative “non-denominational” churches are follow the Baptist pattern, and many Baptists don’t consider themselves part of a denomination, since each Baptist Church is institutionally autonomous. Baptist churches are notorious in some areas for splitting, since they don’t have a national structure with the power to resolve disputes or reign in pastors.
Episcopalians and Lutherans are much more liturgical and have formal services with little variation between congregations. They are much closer to Catholics in practice and somewhat closer in theology than other Protestants. I believe they both have Communion at every Sunday service, although this has varied among all denominations historically. Episcopalians are frequently more liberal than other denominations, but not universally. (This has caused some problems that have been in the news lately.) Lutherans are reputed to be dour and aloof, but this may largely be the doing of Garrison Keillor. ELCA Lutherans are theologically moderate to liberal, while Missouri Synod Lutherans are conservative to fundamentalist. I believe both have moderately powerful hierarchies more based on the personal authority and influence of the bishop than on the corporate structure.
Pentecostals and Assembly of God speak in tongues. Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on doors. Mormons knock on doors and used to be polygamists, but they aren’t any more. All of these have more extreme doctrinal differences with more “mainstream” denominations. (Sorry for giving short characatures of you guys, but I’m not the one to go into more detail.)
Forgot to add (since it’s politically relevant) that the UCC (United Church of Christ)–Obama’s church–is a fairly small denomination mostly (I think) in the northeast. They’re descended from four different traditions, mostly Congregationalist and Reformed. (I forget the other two.) As a denomination they are very liberal, though I have met conservative UCCers, including a pastor or two. They believe very strongly (like the Baptists) in the autonomy of the individual congregation. They are a popular destination for seminarians who are refused ordination by their former denomination for being gay. The joke in grad school (owing to their rep for liberalism and openness) was that UCC stood for “Unitarians Considering Christ.” They hated that joke. (So did the UUs.)
My ELCA congregation uses a common chalice, celebrates communion every service, and communion is open to all baptized Christians.
However, I have no doubt that the church you attended did things exactly as you described. Just another example of not being able to identify a church strictly by its type of worship service.
Also, I should point out that the United Methodist Church’s main service body, the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) is often the first relief organization “on the ground” for a given emergency, even beating Red Cross to the punch a couple of times.
They do a ton of good work.
Which is yet another example of how the Catholic Church is nothing near the monolithic bloc many non-Catholics make it.
The Wesleys sound like they would have been Jesuits (First or Tertiary order, the tertiaries “live in the world” and aren’t ordained priests) if they’d been from Spain; my mucho-Catholic mother got berated soundly by her parish priest for “keeping count” of whether my brothers and myself went to Mass or not.
In theory my divorced and civilly-remarried aunt (whose first marriage is quite null, just hasn’t been annulled) can’t have Communion, but who will stop her? Most of the people she may be in a church with either don’t know the rule, don’t care, don’t know her marriage situation or don’t care about it. The priest who gave her Confession and Communion the last time she had surgery knew both, ego te absolvo, corpus christi, amen.