S.R.C. FAQ Collection


 S.R.C Main   ·   FAQs  
 

Where did all those denominations come from?

Readers often ask about the history of denominations. Obviously you need a book to do this. But I'll give you some of the major points. This review is restricted to the US, and to some extent Europe. Because Africa, Latin American, and Asia were evangelized from there, the same churches appear. However Africa has its own traditions, and additional groups have grown up there, both in ancient and modern times. I don't know that history, or the history of Latin America and Asia, well enough to describe it.

There is another FAQ entry that focuses more on helping people decide what denominations they might be interested in looking at. It is How can I choose a denomination?. While there's a good deal of overlap with this document, this one emphasizes history while that one emphasizes the characteristics of the denominations. In Protestant Theology I have tried to summarize the theological traditions behind the Protestant denominations. These make up most of the denominations described here.

*     *     *

Orginally we didn't have denominations in the modern sense, although the problem of divisions in the Church goes back to NT times. I won't deal with groups that are no longer alive, such as the Donatists.

The East/West Split

The Eastern and Western parts of the Church slowly grew apart. There were many reasons: language (Greek vs Latin), the role of the Pope, certain theological differences. The result is the division into what is now called the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The Orthodox churches tend to be national: there are Greek, Russian, etc. But they are fairly close in theology, and see each other as colleagues.

16th Century: Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans

Focusing on the West (the Catholic tradition): During the Middle Ages there was a continuing set of groups challenging the mainstream church. But none of them really remain except for the Waldensians. The real explosion of denominations started with the Reformation in the 16th Cent. At that point three major groups split from the Catholics: Lutherans, Reformed, and Baptist. In addition, we had the Anglicans, which you may or may not regard as Protestant. For Lutherans and Reformed, the original difference was geography. The German Reformation was Lutheran, the Swiss and Dutch (and the French until the people will killed or forced to leave) were Reformed. Theology was actually fairly close. The main differences were how hardline they are on predestination and some details of how communion is explained. The Anglicans were strongly influenced by the Reformed, but maintained more continuity with the Catholic tradition. (In particular, because the whole Catholic hierarchy was taken over, they are one of the few groups that continued to have bishops in the Apostolic Succession -- although the Catholics deny this.)

The Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican churches still exist. In the US, there are a number of separate bodies. To a large extent this is because immigrants brought their national churches, so there are Lutheran bodies from Germany, Sweden, etc.

The major Reformed bodies are called Presbyterian (basically Reformed Christians from England and Scotland), Reformed (typically from Holland, though there are some others as well), Congregational (now called the United Church of Christ -- another group from England, which differed from the Presbyterians in their ideas of how the church should be organized), and perhaps Baptist. (The original Baptists were sort of a cross between Reformed and the Radical Reformation. They accepted much of the Reformed theology, but believed in a gathered church and believers' baptism. However most modern Baptists are not Reformed in theology.) Some splits occured in the US over revivalism -- traditionalists thought that the revivalists were too emotional and were compromising theology. More recently, splits have occurred over modernism. So in the Presbyterian Church, the largest church is the PCUSA, which is fairly liberal. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church and PCUS are conservative offshoots, which hold to the older theological standards.

Note by the way that the term "Calvinist" is sometimes used to describe the Reformed tradition. In fact Reformed is slightly broader, as it includes both Calvinism and other portions of the Swiss Reformation going back to Zwingli. Technically the term Calvinist should mean a person or church who accepts the major doctrines of Calvin. The most well-known is double predestination, but there are some others as well (there's a separate FAQ on this). The Reformed churches in the US were all originally Calvinist. Probably it doesn't make sense to consider the larger ones (e.g. Presbyterian (USA) and UCC) Calvinists anymore. At least some of Calvin's more controversial doctrines (e.g. predestination) are not held by most members.

The Anglican churches continue to be national bodies, with the one in the US being the Episcopal Church.

It's probably worth mentioning the Unitarian and Universalist traditions. These were originally the liberal wing of the Reformed tradition. The current US tradition goes back to a group of intellectuals in Boston in the 18th Cent., though there was some influence from free thinkers in the 16th Cent. Their major current incarnation in the US is the Unitarian Universalist Association. It is the extreme liberal wing of Christianity, and in fact it is not exclusively Christian. (UU churches sometimes host pagan groups.)

16th Century: Baptists

The Baptists saw things differently than the Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans. The latter churches continued to baptize infants. They were State churches, which tried to maintain a Christian State and population. (The Lutherans and Reformed are referred to as the "magisterial Reformation", because they worked with the magistrates, i.e. the government. The Baptists are often referred to as the radical Reformation. The older term was anabaptist.) The Baptists thought this resulted in compromise. They believed that only individuals could be Christian, and used adult baptism to separate out those who were committed. As far as I can tell, this emphasis on conversion, believers' baptism, etc., have survived, but no major theological school has resulted.

The original Baptists survive in small groups such as the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites. However many of their emphases have been more widely accepted. The largest group that they influenced are the modern Baptists. Historically, the current Baptists started in England, and were Reformed in theology. But they are strongly influenced by the Reformation-era Baptists, and often think of themselves as part of the same movement. Aside from the emphases mentioned in the previous paragraph, Baptists tend to be Reformed and/or Arminian in theology.

The Arminian/Wesleyan Tradition and the Holiness/Pentecostal Movements

Arminianism started in Holland, as an offshoot of Reformed theology. The distinctive issue is free will. Reformed theology sees justification as occurring entirely by God's initiative. Arminianism acknowledges that without God we are doomed. So God must initiate the process, but we respond freely, and can reject God. Arminian theology had its largest impact through John Wesley and the Methodists. Wesley was an Anglican pastor, and the Methodists were originally a sort of reform movement within the Anglican Church. It emphasized evangelical preaching, and reaching working class and poor. While there were originally Reformed participants, Wesley was Arminian, and Methodism generally adopted this theology. This Methodist/Arminian theology as the foundation of much of today's evanglicalism, although there is also a strong Reformed influence.

The Wesleyan/Arminian tradition has resulted in a large number of churches in the US. First, there is the Methodist Church and some smaller Wesleyan groups. Next, there's a whole line of developments. Wesley believed in "Christian perfection", the idea that it is possible to become spiritually perfect, by an act of the Holy Spirit in purifying you. This idea, which has been variously called "entire holiness" and "crisis sanctification" developed into the Holiness movement. By this time, the Methodist Church had become a bit traditional, so these were really attempts to put some evangelical fervor into the tradition, but they also pushed Wesley's idea of perfection in a direction that eventually led to Pentecostalism: the idea that the Holy Spirit would become active in us and renew us with visible results. Churches in this family survive, e.g. the Church of the Nazarene, the Salvation Army (yes, it's actually a church, not just a charity), the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Brethren in Christ, and the evangelical Friends.

Things didn't stop with the Holiness churches. The idea of crisis sanctification and renewal by the Holy Spirit developed further, with speaking in tongues and other signs. Thus the Pentecostal churches are a further development of the Wesleyan tradition. However not all Pentecostal churches retained the original Arminian/Wesleyan theology. The Church of God in Christ does. But other Pentecostal churches are more Reformed in theology. The largest of these is the Assemblies of God. Finally, some Pentecostal churches came to deny the Trinity. These are now referred to as "oneness" Pentecostals. The largest of these is the United Pentecostal Church, International.

The Restoration Churches

These are all churches that go back organizationally to the original Reformers or the Anglicans. In addition, there have been a number of more radical approaches. Often these were reactions to the problem of denominationalism: What do we do with multiple denominations, all claiming to be the true church? A number of people thought that the denominational approach had failed, and they should attempt to recreate the church directly from Scripture. I refer to this as the Restoration movement.

Ironically, the final result of this process was simply to add an additional set of denominations. Indeed in many ways they made things worse. The major historical denominations have largely patched up their differences. While there are still some difference between the Arminian/Wesleyan, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions, you don't have the name-calling that was present in the 19th Cent, and these churches generally recognize each other as legitimate (except for issues of modernism). However some of the "non-denominational" churches continue to insist loudly that they are the only true church.

The major Restoration churches are the Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ and the Mormons. The Disciples are the more liberal of the Disciples/Church of Christ family, and can almost be thought of as Reformed. The Church of Christ still has some churches that refuse to use musical instruments because they aren't Biblical, and some churches that refuse to use any national organizations, even for cooperation in mission work. Note that there are two types of Church of Christ. In addition to what I just described, there is the more recent "Boston Church" movement, which also uses the Church of Christ name. There's some reason for this, but it has some characteristics that worry most other Christians, and leads to some people regarding it as a "cult."

As mentioned above, The Restoration movement was an attempt to start a church on the New Testament model more or less from scratch. The concern was all these denominations had become a hindrance to the Gospel. So they attempted to look again at just what the NT specified. They came up with something that has some similarities to the Baptists and other evangelical churches, though with some of its own emphases. The primary characteristic is that it absolutely denies that it's just another denomination. The major (non)denominations that came from this tradition are the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ(Independent), the Churches of Christ(Noninstrumental), and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The Disciples of Christ have become a lot more liberal and ecumencial-minded. In terms of theology, they look a lot like one of the Reformed or Wesleyan/Arminian churches. The Noninstrumental Churches of Christ are distinguished by not using instruments in worship.

A more recent group is somewhat related to this tradition: the International Church of Christ. Like the original Restoration, it's an attempt to recreate Christianity from the Bible. There some similiarities to the older groups. But it's controversial, and is considered by some to be a "cult". Questions about this group are one of the most common I get -- there's a separate (huge) FAQ on them.

The Mormons are beyond the scope of this essay. I classify them (partiallyl) as Restoration because many of the early members were motivated by concerns identical to those of the Church of Christ, and in fact some of the early leaders came from the Church of Christ. I also list them below, since they have aspects that go beyond the usual Restoration approach.

Other New Churches

There have been at least two other major causes of new church formation, particularly in the U.S.: charismatic leaders with a particular vision, and expectations of the imminent second coming. A number of churches were formed because of specific teachings of a leader. Among these I would include the Mormons (Later-day Saints), Christian Scientists, and World-Wide Church of God. In general the Mormons believe in continuing revelation, deny that God and humanity are essentially different, and have their own additional scriptures. The Christian Scientists believe in spiritual healing (and that the material world is not entirely real, or at least that the spiritual world is a more senior reality). I'm not sure what the current beliefs of the WWCoG are. (They seem to be in transition.)

The Quakers could also fit into this category, as they are based on a particular vision, though in many ways they don't fit well with the others. They were founded in Britain in 1668 by George Fox. They are best known for emphasizing the importance of individuals' being led by the "Inner Light", a deemphasis of doctrine and creed, meetings for worship based on silence, and a consistent witness for peace, human dignity and respect for everyone. Not all Quakers consider themselves Christian, though many do, and there are certainly evangelical Friends. At any rate, their ideas seem based on Jesus' teachings.

The imminent expectation of the end led to several groups characterized as Adventist. The best-known survivals of this are the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. The SDA's have some novel theological views (e.g. that hell results in destruction of the soul rather than eternal torment, and the importance of worship on Saturday), but are more mainstream than the JW's. There's a separate FAQ on the JW's, so I won't say much here.

Some terminology: fundamentalist, evangelical

Fundamentalist and evangelical are terms that characterize certain theological views or approaches. They aren't specific churches.

Fundamentalist comes from a movement early in the 20th Cent, reacting against "modernism". It emphasized traditional fundamental doctrines of (conservative Protestant) Christianity: the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, etc. The term is generally used for any person or Church with that emphasis. There are churches from each of the major Protestant traditions that could reasonably be considered fundamentalist.

Evangelical is a general term meaning that a group emphasizes the gospel. Of course every church should be evangelical (as every church should be catholic and orthodox). But the term was used during the Reformation for the Protestant churches in particular. I believe in some languages it is still used essentially as a synonym for Protestant. In the U.S. it is used for those churches that emphasize Biblical teaching and preaching and missionary work, and typically take a inerrantist or near-inerrantist position on Scripture.

There is a certain overlap between fundamentalist and evangelical. Both are the conservative end of Protestantism. However in practice the term evangelical refers to a somewhat "softer" conservative approach. Evangelicals are more interested in working with other churches and more likely to become engaged with the culture. The Dictionary of Christianity in America says "Eventually, the term fundamentalist came to refer to militantly antimodernistic Protestant evangelicals in general."

One problem is that "fundamentalist" has become an insult. It tends to be used by the press to characterize the elements in any religion that they consider to be extremists. Of course others may think that they consider anyone an extremist when they simply insist on taking religious seriously.

Can we make sense of this?

This picture is very complex. However I think one can simplify it. There are thousands of denominations. But there aren't thousands of real theological traditions. There are really only about 3 major theological traditions. Then there are a bunch of specific issues. So a church is typically characterized by which major tradition they are part of, and a set of specific emphases (e.g. whether to baptize infants, speaking in tongues, and a specific approach to the challenges of modernism). These emphases tend to cross the theological traditions. You will find churches in each of the major traditions taking similar positions on these questions.

The three major traditions I referred to are the following. They correspond to the three major Protestant Church Fathers. There are, of course, more than three great Protestant thinkers and writers. But in terms of their historical and theological influence, I think these deserve special emphasis.

These are the traditions that keep coming back even as denominations split and re-form. (This is speaking of Protestantism. In addition to this, we should add the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.) These traditions are not completely isolated. Major Protestant writers cite from all three, as well as from Fathers in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

In addition to these three major traditions, there are several traditions that have been influential, but which tend to emphasize specific issues, and in some cases they really don't go beyond one issue. Thus they are commonly combined with one or more of the major traditions. Some of the broader ones are

but there are certainly more than this. I would point to the Quakers as one example. (I went to a Quaker college, and have a great admiration for them.)

There may be more than one church with a given combination of theology and emphases. In some cases this is due to history: they may have developed separately but for similar reasons, or (particularly for Lutherans) they may go back to similar groups from different countries. You may ask why all the churches with similar views don't combine. In fact many Protestants do not regard it as a goal to have a single large church. Protestants tend to be suspicious of large organizations, on the grounds that national leaderships tend to develop their own agendas. (This is particularly visible in the more liberal churches, where in general the national staff are far to the left of the church as a whole.)

Thus the existence of many churches doesn't imply that they're all different and all claiming to be the only true church. There are certainly acrimonious disagreements: many conservatives believe that the liberal churches are apostate. But the days are past when Lutherans and Reformed think that their different approaches to eucharistic theology are a big deal. People from those traditions certainly talk about that in a good-natured way, but Lutherans and Reformed (when they have similar positions on the modernism issues) tend to see each other as fellow representatives of the classic Reformation.

Note that many denominations form not because of traditional theological issues, but because of specific problems. Several of the problems that have led to splits and new denominations in the US are

Revivalism caused splits for a couple of reasons. To some extent it was a matter of style. Traditionalists were unimpressed by the emotionalism, and considered it to lead to commitments that proved in the long run not to be real. But there was also a theological problem: Revivalists tended to hold Arminian theological views, which caused problems in Reformed denominations.

Starting in the late 19th Century, modernism raised a number of issues, which tended to present themselves as a set of areas where people thought that traditional theology and/or practice needed to be reevaluated: the literal accuracy of Genesis (which affects doctrines such as Original Sin), ordination of women, acceptance or ordination of homosexuals, and sexual standards in general. A number of splits resulted. However by the middle of the 20th Cent, denominations became less willing to split. Where in the 19th Cent, issues like this would have resulted in new denominations, in the last half of the 20th Cent they are resulting in fights within denominations. Of course part of this is that there already are liberal and conservative versions of most major groups. So rather than creating new denominations, people who are unhappy with what is going on can normally find a more liberal or conservative group already in existence. But even that isn't happening as often as you might think, particularly in the liberal churches.