MARK@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu (Mark Woodruff) (07/02/90)
What's the difference between the various denominations of the Christianity? I'm curious as to why there are so many splinter groups in the body of Christ? mark
howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) (07/05/90)
In article <Jul.2.01.32.39.1990.12006@athos.rutgers.edu> MARK@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu (Mark Woodruff) writes: >What's the difference between the various denominations of the >Christianity? I'm curious as to why there are so many splinter >groups in the body of Christ? It is certainly entertaining to try and figure out how the mind of man works. Someone will no doubt follow-up your article with names and dates to tell you why their particular version of Christianity is the "right" one, so I will just provide some musings. Since the first major split in Christianity (Romans vs Gnostics; final score 1 - 0 Romans, Gostic writings were removed from the bible) the reasons have in most cases been an attempt to gain power by specific individuals. This statement is often upsetting to people, who feel that their sect was formed on the basis of deep spiritual insite, but the fact is that certain individuals who wanted change within the system, weren't getting it fast enough to meet their needs and so were forced for political reasons to break away and head (ever here of the founder of a new group becoming a follower :-)) their own group. Whether or not you accept this reasoning is entirely your own business, but the point is that most changes in the church have been political, rather than spiritual. This is not to say that a spiritual component did not exist, it many times did, but the change was either to slow or not well enough received politically and that demanded segmentation. The prime example that comes to mind is the Anglican (Episcopalian in the US) Church, (Romans vs Anglicans; 2 - 1 Romans kept the papacy and most of Europe, Anglicans gained a monarch). On the whim of a monarch a whole segment of the church hierarchy went off trying to come up with ways to justify his divorce of one woman over another. Those that would allow it also had cotempuous views of the papacy and some areas of disagreement in dogma. The problem is, if you as an individual disbelieve segments of dogma you are in the least, misguided and at at worst a heretic. If you were a priest or minister you would be removed from office. If you were a bishop then the possibility arose that you could influence many others to your way of thinking, and if you were a group of bishops, well you had the basis for a new religion. You see these are political actions; the individual, the priest, the bishop, all had a common denominator of dissatisfaction, but only the bishops were well place enough to make a significant difference. By the way, it doesn't make them right. What keeps the churchs apart today is habit. If you were born and raised in the United Church, then that is way to do things and all the Catholic mumbo jumbo about saints and Virgins is alien to you...you wouldn't mind them coming around to your way of thinking but YOU certainly won't change. The other problem is that the Catholic church still has its well defined papacy and the heads and power figures in other sects wouldn't fit too well into the structure, and they aren't prepared to make the sacrifice of becoming less significant. All the dogmatic difficulties in the world aren't nearly as tough to overcome as the idea that you may become sublimated and appear less powerful. If that issue is ever resolved, then unity is just around the corner. / / / / / / / / / / :-(I Think, Therefore I Am, I Think :-) / / / / / / / / / / / Howard.Steel@Waterloo.NCR.COM NCR CANADA LTD. - 580 Weber St. N / / (519)884-1710 Ext 570 Waterloo, Ont., N2J 4G5 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / [This seems like a pretty jaundiced view of inter-church relations. I think many Christians do not consider the lines between churches as being as important as all that. The Catholics are of course an exception, since they believe that the unity of the body of Christ is manifested in an organization. However Protestants (particularly American) have seen the body of Christ as something that transcends organizational boundaries. I feel no less communion with members of other churches than my own. My experience with bureacracies -- church and otherwise -- does not suggest that a single church containing 90% of the population of the U.S. would necessarily be a better witness to Christ than the current situation. Before people talk about how terrible it is that we have so many churches, I'd like them to think carefully about what it would mean to have a single church that included almost the entire population. Indeed I think such a situation would be far more likely to lead to excessive confusion between church and state, and it would tend to encourage leaders of the organization to confuse their own decisions with God's. --clh]
stq@cbnewsi.att.com (Scott T Questad) (07/05/90)
In article <Jul.2.01.32.39.1990.12006@athos.rutgers.edu>, MARK@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu (Mark Woodruff) writes: > What's the difference between the various denominations of the > Christianity? I'm curious as to why there are so many splinter > groups in the body of Christ? The basic difference in Christian denominations is that different people interpret scripture differently. One example is baptism. Some people believe that only those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized. Others believe that infants can be baptized. That's just one example. Unfortunately, this sometimes degrades into an "I'm right and you're wrong" situation. All it really boils down to is a difference of interpretation. A true Christian is the brother of any other Christian no matter what denomination they belong to; and they should act accordingly. I have been blessed with the church I currently attend. It's a Southern Baptist Church, I'm from a Reformed (Reformed Episcopalian exactly) background and I don't know of all that many real Southern Baptists in the church. It's great, though. We have some VERY ineresting discussions, but two things we keep in mind are that 1) we are not God and 2) we are brothers. I think that should be our attitude whenever we meet or talk with another Christian. Scott Q
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (07/08/90)
In article <Jul.5.01.52.00.1990.177@athos.rutgers.edu> howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) writes: >Since the first major split in Christianity (Romans vs Gnostics; final score >1 - 0 Romans, Gnostic >writings were removed from the bible) the reasons have in >most cases been an attempt to gain power by specific individuals. There has been a lot of this recently. Since little is known about the Gnostics, they have been idealised by modern writers. What people say about the Gnostics usually has more to do with themselves than what the Gnostics actually were. The Gnostic writings are much later than the standard canonical parts of the Bible, and do not reflect the Jesus we know through the Bible. They are an attempt to graft various ideas current at the time onto Christianity. They were not removed from the Bible, they were never added to it because it was obvious at the time that they weren't genuinely Christian, but attempts to work Gnosticism into Christianity by putting Gnostic words into Jesus' mouth. Matthew Huntbach
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/13/90)
> What's the difference between the various denominations of > Christianity? I'm curious as to why there are so many splinter groups > in the body of Christ? > > mark One poster answered your question by saying that the reason for the diversity is that there are different interpretations of Scripture. Historically, though, that is only the explanation of the splits within Protestantism, and does not address the original split between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church. That was not due to disagreement over Scripture interpretation, but over the sources of Christian doctrine. Schisms over varying interpretations of Scripture are only possibly when there is no one authority with the divine mandate to interpret Scripture. The Reformers, during their attempt to correct the problems in the Roman Catholic Church, ended up adopting a different model of the sources of revealed truth. The Reformers couldn't say that an infallible Church fell into error; they stopped believing that the Church is infallible. They adopted the Bible as their source of doctrine, but this is not an objective source, as an infallible Church is. So Protestantism has had a lot of splintering. The other major split, of little importance in daily life in this country, is that between the Orthodox and the Catholics. This dates, in its final form, from 1054. It was mainly for non-dogmatic reasons, so the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are few. Primarily two: Papal jurisdiction over the whole Church, and the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. Liturgically and doctrinally, one would have a hard time telling Orthodox from eastern rite Catholic without knowing what to look for. Joe Buehler
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (07/26/90)
In article <Jul.13.04.05.56.1990.11616@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: > >The Reformers, during their attempt to correct the problems in the Roman >Catholic Church, ended up adopting a different model of the sources of >revealed truth. The Reformers couldn't say that an infallible Church >fell into error; they stopped believing that the Church is infallible. > >They adopted the Bible as their source of doctrine, but this is not an >objective source, as an infallible Church is. So Protestantism has had >a lot of splintering. > >Joe Buehler An infallible Church is an objective source? It seems to me that something written down once for all is much more objective than a bunch of archbishops and popes whose ideas change over the centuries. "But the Church and Tradition are the living, breathing Word of God, more relevant for us today," you might say. Then again you might say, "The Church and Tradition are just ways to justify abuse and greed and power." Now I'm not saying that, and I for one don't like to question authority just because it is authority. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I am not convinced that a body of fallible humans is more infallible than words written down. Then you might say, "Who wrote these words? Out of what context did they spring? They came out of a Tradition of their own, out of a community of their own. What came first, the chicken or the egg?" And now I see that my own thoughts have opened up a can of worms worth reams of paper and many hours on the net, so I'll stop for now. [I think what Joe meant is that in practice the Bible alone has been interpreted in many different ways. If you want absolute truth, you need some way to find the correct interpretation. The infallible Church is claimed to provide that. Without it the Bible becomes subjective because it becomes subject to everybody's private interpretation. --clh]
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (08/08/90)
An infallible Church is an objective source? It seems to me that something written down once for all is much more objective than a bunch of archbishops and popes whose ideas change over the centuries. "But the Church and Since the Church is infallible, once it decides something, the decision can't be changed. Clerics, no matter how highly placed, are only allowed to argue about things that haven't been decided. The canons of Vatican I, Trent, and the definitions of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception have been written down once for all, as you point out that the Bible has. They can't be changed any more than the Bible can. A principal difference between Reformation theology and Catholic theology is that there is a way in the Catholic Church to decide, once and for all, what the meaning of a particular part of the Bible is. The system of the Reformers, on the other hand, has no way to reach unanimous agreement on the meaning of any given verse. That's all I was talking about. Joe Buehler