[nymphetamine]

Hey, Y'all. I wondered why is it that we have so many different denominations in christianity? I have not chosen a denomination. My parents took us from one to the next and I grew up pretty danged confused. I got curious about wicca and some other types of religion because I didn't know where I belong. I believe in God yet I have a lot of respect for wicca and people in Islam and I think that maybe my parents not leaving us to one particular branch christianity helped make me to not grow to be one of the many close minded and judgmental christians that I know. Lots of other christians I know call themselves people of god and speak of gods love yet they are racist and hatefull. You'll hear them use the and word more quick than anyone. I don't go to church because of these things and all the denomination confusion. Why have all this denomination when they all believe in the same God? Life is confusing enough I say.

[fredg]

Hi,
Without giving specific references, many denominations of Christian Faith started when some of the church members disagreed with the teachings.
For example, in Christian Religion, there are church names so numerous that it's hard to keep up with them.
The Church of Christ, The Church of God, First Baptist, First Grace Baptist, just to name a very few.
The first church was Christ's Church, from where all the others "broke off", with a little different and slight variations.
I know what you mean by going to church, listening to others, and then seeing how they act in real life, outside of church. That is up to them.
If you are really interested in going to church, just go. Pick one that you will know someone, sit with them. Church is just like the rest of life; some good people, some not so good people.
Many people who grow up in families that have no religion, or practice it, leave children who "are trying to find themselves", in church, and in life. You have to do it yourself. If you believe in God, then learn more about Him, in a church.
I do wish you the best, and I am sure you will get some more answers, from those more qualified than I to give you advice.

[orange]

I think it's human nature to question and argue and then get mad and take off if someone disagrees with your opinion. That's how a lot of churches started... look at the Church of England (Anglicans, Episcopalians). King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife but the pope said no, so he was annoyed and formed his own religion. Two more modern examples are the Lutherans and the Baptists. Apparently the Lutherans have about 20 sub-denominations! The two largest ones are the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. The former has liberal leanings and the latter is much more conservative, hence the split. Growing up, one of my foster families was Baptist. It was explained to me that Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local church, so therefore each individual church can make its own rules and be a Church unto itself. In my city for example, there are nine Baptist churches, and they run the gamut from the Bible Baptist Church which only uses the King James Version of the Bible and is very conservative, to the First Baptist Church, which is very liberal, and all kinds of churches in between, which differ basically on how they decide to interpret scripture. There is even one called the Regular Baptist Church. Like the others are all irregular or something? LOL.

Btw, not sure if you know this or not, but there are many different "denominations" of Judaism and Wicca too. Among Jews there are the various Hasidic groups including the Lubavitch, then there's the Modern Orthodox, the Conservative, the Reform, the Reconstructionist, etc... and basically the differences between these groups are their beliefs about the Torah (Bible) and Talmud. The Orthodox believe the Torah is the written word of God, whereas the Reconstructionist think it's a just a record of the traditions of the Jewish people, and not at all divine. So once again the splits are a matter of interpretation of scripture.

Then there is my one friend, who was raised by parents who are into Traditional Witchcraft, and are against Wicca! LOL! They say Wiccans are flakes and they themselves are the only ones practicing REAL witchcraft. So the problem exists in every faith community.

Don't know if what I've said has made much sense, but basically I believe it all boils down to disagreements and fighting...

[Morganite]

King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife but the pope said no, so he was annoyed and formed his own religion.

Hello Orange,

What you wrote makes a lot of sense.

Henry VIII didn't start a new religion.

He merely replaced the pope with himself, and then the newly named but largely unaltered "Church of England" continued Roman traditions. That meant that Henry could please himself in the matter of personal dispensations and also stop paying taxes to Rome.

What is referred to in Anglicanism as "High Church [of England]" is virtually indistinguishable today from Roman Catholicism, even down to a celibate priesthood.

Its more common name is Anglican-Catholicism, and it is but a whisper away from Rome.

The modern Church of England-at-large has no separate and distinct teachings on which all its adherents or even its ministers remain fixed. Its formal creeds have been diluted repeatedly and abandoned often, and a please-yourself approach to theology has completed its hurtle to what might be its total demise.




MORGANITE


:)

[orange]

Thanks for your comments Morganite. I appreciate it! :) But, the Church of England doesn't have a celibate priesthood. My friend's dad is an Anglican priest. I've never heard it called Anglican Catholicism, I'll have to ask him about that. I know that he says it's called Anglican here in Canada and Episcopalian in the US. But basically it's the Church of England (or Scotland or Ireland, haha, depending on where you're living!) Anyway thanks this is a cool discussion.

[talaniman]

You got to be some kind of genius to keep up with all the different religions sect sub-sect denominations and churches.It seemes every time someone gets a bug in his butt the solution is to start another church!No wonder there is so much confusion in the world.I've always ignored the politics of religion and have concluded that good people are just good people.And bad people are everywhere.There are so many opinions everywhere and everybody thinks they're right.Where I draw the line is when you try and tell me how wrong I am.Its one thing to disagree its another to try and tell someone what to do!I have learned to leave closed minded intolerant people alone and enjoy the company of those I find to be just good humans whether they are christian or not because who really cares where you find the God of your own understanding!:cool:

[Fr_Chuck]

In general if you view denomination as a group of people who meet to worship Jesus with different beleifs and practice, there was from the beginning of Christianity. If you merely read the letters of Paul to the different churches you will see where the people even within 40 years of Jesus death were doing some difference in practice and customs.

At the very early church councils we see who the nationality of where you lived influenced customs and beleifs.

Today sadly as it did back then, a lot comes from who wants to be the chief and leader ( instead of Christ)

The Church of the East ( Orthodox) broke away from Rome over several issues, some breaks like with Martain Luther happened because of political reasons. Yes he disagreed with the Catholic Church, and was sentenced to death by them. He then used the worldly politics to get Germany stand up against the political power of Rome. This political break started other political breaks which stemed religioius breaks also.

Then of course England using religion made a political break from them also.

Today of course if the preachers wife upsets two of the elders, they move down the road and start their own church now. It has become too easy with no penalty to start a new church.

You have 30 or so different baptists, a vareity of Methodist, 10 or so Lutherans, about 30 or so Catholic groups ( more about like 200 but I only count the ones that actually have churches and are large enough to have notice)

So most of it has to do with mans desire to be a leader, politics of the world, and disagreement over what is normally minor bibical opinions

[phildebenham]

Hey, Y'all. I wondered why is it that we have so many different denominations in christianity? I have not chosen a denomination. My parents took us from one to the next and I grew up pretty danged confused. I got curious about wicca and some other types of religion because I didnt know where I belong. I believe in God yet I have alot of respect for wicca and people in Islam and I think that maybe my parents not leaving us to one particular branch christianity helped make me to not grow to be one of the many close minded and judgmental christians that I know. lots of other christians i know call them selves people of god and speak of gods love yet they are racist and hatefull. Youll hear them use the n word quicker than anyone. I dont go to church because of these things and all the denomination confusion. Why have all this denomination when they all believe in the same God? life is confusing enough i say.

Crankiebaby,

The simple reason for different denominations is that most people who consider themselves "Christian" do not take the bible seriously. Instead of believing what God has communicated through the scripture they decide what He means rather than simply believing exactly what He has said. Consequently one group believes God means "X", but another groups says "No, He means "Y." The truth is He means exactly what He says.

How do you pick a church? Ignore the denominational title and pick a church that believes the bible as it is written. If you find a church like that (and there are many to find), there will be no predjudice in their teaching or in their hearts because they will realize that we are all related. We all trace our ancestry back to Adam and Eve... Literally.

As for Christians being narrow minded, you are quite correct. One cannot believe that sin is sin (no gray areas here), that there is but one God and that is the God of the Bible, that Jesus is the Only Way to God, and not be narrow minded. However, that kind of narrow-mindedness is what God requires.

May God richly bless you,

Phil Debenham

[RickJ]

In short, the various denominations have arisen out of the idea that one man's interpretation of scripture are as good as anothers'.

This idea leans heavily on the Bible being the sole authority on doctrinal issues.

The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that Christ did not commission a book or books; He founded a Church, gave it leaders and gave those leaders authority.

Further, the idea discounts the fact that we did not even have a "Bible" until about 300 years after Christ died.

... but this, of course, only speaks about Christianity.

I see that you recognize some good in people of other faiths. That is fine. We can find good people in all faiths.

You believe in God. That is just the first step. The next step is to ask yourself "Has God revealed Himself personally to Mankind?". And "If so, then how?"

For me, the evidence points to the Historic Judeao-Christian faith.

[Morganite]

Thanks for your comments Morganite. I appreciate it! :) But, the Church of England doesn't have a celibate priesthood. My friend's dad is an Anglican priest. I've never heard it called Anglican Catholicism, I'll have to ask him about that. I know that he says it's called Anglican here in Canada and Episcopalian in the US. But basically it's the Church of England (or Scotland or Ireland, haha, depending on where you're living!) Anyways thanks this is a cool discussion.

Orange,

Anglican priests, per se, are not celibate. The celbate priests within Anglicanism that I mentioned are High Church, or Anglican-Catholics. This will help clear the confusion.

The terms Anglo-Catholic and Anglo-Catholicism describe people, groups, ideas, customs and practices within Anglicanism that emphasise continuity with Catholic tradition. Since the English Reformation there have always been Anglicans who identify themselves closely with traditional Catholic thought and practice.

The concept of Anglo-Catholicism as a distinct sub-group or branch of Anglicanism, however, began to come to prominence in the Church of England during the Victorian era under the influence of the Oxford Movement or "Tractarians".

Anglo-Catholic people and churches are usually identified by their liturgical practices and ornaments. Anglo-Catholics use many traditional Catholic practices in their liturgical ceremonies such as vestments, incense and candles and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Anglo-Catholic liturgical practices (incorrectly called 'Ritualism') were a particular source of controversy in the nineteenth century, especially in England where Parliament was asked to legislate against certain practices.

Many Anglo-Catholic "innovations," which were revivals of dormant Catholic practices eventually became accepted by most mainstream Anglicans.

What Anglo-Catholics believe is highly debated even among people who identify themselves as such. The Thirty-Nine Articles make distinctions between Anglican and Roman Catholic doctrine; but the Articles have never been regarded with much favour by Anglo-Catholics, and because they were purposely written in such a way as to be open to a wide range of interpretation, some Anglo-Catholics have defended Catholic practices and beliefs as being consistent with the Articles.

Anglo-Catholic priests often hear private confessions and anoint the sick, regarding these practices (as do Roman Catholics) as sacraments; whereas more Protestant-minded Anglicans generally think of them as merely optional sacramental rites. (The classic Anglican aphorism regarding confession is "All may, none must, some should").

Anglo-Catholics share with Roman Catholics a belief in the sacramental nature of the priesthood and the sacrificial character of the Mass; many encourage priestly celibacy, and until the 1970s almost all rejected the possibility of women receiving Holy Orders.

In recent years, though, some Anglo-Catholics have accepted the ordination of women and other aspects of "liberalism" such as the use of modern and inclusive language in Bible translations and the liturgy, although many have not and have set up as an opposiiton.

While the nineteenth-century Anglo-Catholic movement began partly as a reaction to liberalism (in the theological sense), secularism (in the Darwiniam sense), and Evangelicalism (in the "enthusiastic" sense) in the Church of England, the movement's heirs in the modern church are far more diverse and in some respects more inclusive. The movement Affirming Catholicism is an example of a more liberal approach to Anglo-Catholic theology and practice.

Most of the groups making up the Continuing Anglican Movement are regarded, and regard themselves, as Anglo-Catholic.

In the Anglican Communion three terms are frequently — but not always correctly — used to denote the parish's style of worship: High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church (or Latitudinarian).

"High Church" is generally used to describe moderate to advanced Anglo-Catholicism, and a heavy leaning towards Rome, including the Papacy.

"Low Church" is used for Anglicans of a more Evangelical or Protestant theology who emphasise the primacy of scripture, salvation by grace through faith alone and worship based on the official prayer books but with much less ceremonial.

The term "Broad Church" is sometimes used for those "middle-of-the-road" Anglicans who are somewhere between the "high" and "low" traditions, or those who stress that there is room for diverse traditions in the Anglican Communion.

Some Anglo-Catholics (sometimes called Anglo-Papalists) consider themselves under Papal supremacy even though they are not in full communion with Rome. Many Anglo-Catholics seek for reunion with Roman Catholic Church. In fact a significant portion of Britain's Roman Catholics are former Anglicans or their descendants.

What has come to be called "Anglo-Catholicism" has a long history within the Anglican Church. From the time of the founding of the first monasteries at Glastonbury in Britain, around the fourth decade C.E. there has been an apostolic line of bishops in the British Isles. Indeed, the first group of missionaries to the Celts of the British Isles are documented as having been compatriots of St. Joseph of Arimathea, and to have been commissioned for their evangelism by the Apostle Philip (who then held the Ephesian See at Hieropolis), sometime around A.D. 47. King Arviragus of Somerset and his sons, Coillus and Marius, deeded the first lands for the Christian monastic communes around Yniswitrin (Glastonbury).

Abbot-bishops continued to lead Christians within commune-settlements in the British Isles, peacefully co-existing with local pagans, until the Bishops of Rome (Popes) sent St. Patrick and St. Augustine of Canterbury to the Isles as missionaries, specifically to get the Celtic Chrisians -- whose practice, having derived from St. Philip the Apostle, was more akin to that of the pre-Chalcedonian Christian East (Middle East) than to that of Rome and the Christian Church of Continental Western Europe, which used Latin rites -- under the authority and rites of the Apostolic See of Rome. Some of their ancient liturgies can be found in the remnant of the Stowe (Lorrha) Missal.

In A.D. 664, the Abess of Whitby, St. Hilda, convened a synod of Celtic bishops that began the process of placing the bishops in the British Isles under the Patriarchal jurisdiction of Rome. By the end of the reign of English King Richard II, in A.D. 1400, the popular right of appointment of Archbishops to their Sees, held by the King, had been ceded to the Roman Pope. British bishops were under direct Roman authority for several more centuries.

Noted should be however, that from the start of Christianity in Britain until the reign of Henry VIII, papal authority was - theoretically - accepted, even though the authority of the pope was far less due to communication difficulties in the first centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

When the Reformation broke out on the European Continent, the tide swept up England as well. Nevertheless, King Henry VIII remained staunchly a Catholic in theology and liturgy, while some reformers (such as Bishops Ridley and Latimer) wanted to follow the radical reforms of Geneva.

Henry said he restored the right of the Sovereign to appoint the Archbishops to their Sees and repudiated Roman usurpations of that right; yet he did this less for the pleas of his bishops than for his own self-interest in obtaining an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. After a brief re-imposition of Roman control during the reign of "Bloody" Mary Tudor, King Edward VI restored royal supremacy. Under his reign the English Church was radically reformed with a new liturgy and new theological positions.

When Queen Elizabeth I took the English throne, she sought to steer a via media between the "excesses" of Rome, on the one hand, and those of Geneva, on the other. Thus was born the Elizabethan Settlement, and the promulgation of a single Book of Common Prayer, for whatever theological party was to use it within the Anglican Church.

From that time, through Archbishop Laud and the Caroline divines, up to the time of the Oxford Movement Tractarians, and the Anglo-Catholic Congesses, to the present day of Affirming Catholicism, there has always been a strong theological party within Anglicanism which has sought to stress apostolic continuity all the way back to the apostle Philip. Despite Roman claims to the contrary in pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae curae (1893), the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York have consistently made clear, starting with their official response, "Saepius officio", that there is an unbroken apostolic succession in the Anglican priesthood, and that the Historic Episcopate has been in the British Isles from the earliest days of the Church.

The Church of England in Scotland is "The Church of Scotland," but the Irish Anglican Church is "The Church in Ireland."






M:) RGANITE

[orange]

I was referring to the Anglican Church... specifically, the Anglican Church of Canada, because that's what most people think of when you say "Anglican" here. But thanks for the info on Anglo-Catholicism. I've never heard anything about it, and I'm always interested to learn new things!

[nymphetamine]

Well what ever life is one big lets see how much more you can take and then thankfully you die and don't have to care anymore

[phildebenham]

well what ever life is one big lets see how much more you can take and then thankfully you die and dont have to care anymore

I don't think so. Life is an opportunity to know the One who created you and loves you and even died for you. Life can be the beginning of eternal life. Life far more rich than any of us can imagine. Abundant life. Life doesn't have to be negative, crankiebabie.

[RickJ]

well what ever life is one big lets see how much more you can take and then thankfully you die and dont have to care anymore

I sense that this is not what you really believe in your heart. I think you see the wonders of the Universe, and of life itself, and know that behind all of this incredible design is probably a designer.

... Am I right? :o

[nymphetamine]

Yes but sometimes it feels that way.

[RickJ]

I do know what you mean, Crankiebabie.

... and believe me, all of us feel that way sometimes... even those who we might think never have doubt; like Billy Graham, The Pope, etc.

I bet each one of them would admit to occasional dark doubt...

[Morganite]

I was referring to the Anglican Church... specifically, the Anglican Church of Canada, because that's what most people think of when you say "Anglican" here. But thanks for the info on Anglo-Catholicism. I've never heard anything about it, and I'm always interested to learn new things!

Thank you for your explanation. The "Anglican Church" proper is the "Church of England" and is used interchangeably.

Anglicanism has a large 'communion' throughout the world, not all of which enjoy the name "Anglican." It is good to learn that there is a "Canadian Church of England."

It is quite propbable that the Canadian Version of Anglicanism does not enjoy a "High Church," so the question of Anglo-Catholics is moot.

It is gratifying to note that the Anglican Church of Canada (that sounds odd, a bit like saying, the English Church of Canada") is engaged in outreach to Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists.

Do you (or your Rev. Uncle) see them extending their oecumenical outreach beyond those 'safe' boundaries?


M:)RGANITE

[RickJ]

It is gratifying to note that the Anglican Church of Canada (that sounds odd, a bit like saying, the English Church of Canada") is engaged in outreach to Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists.

A nice point. Yes, Ecumenism is alive and strong amongst the larger Non-Catholics and the Catholics.

Chuck Coulson is involved in a good one called Catholics and Evangelicals together.

Great stuff!

[Morganite]

well what ever life is one big lets see how much more you can take and then thankfully you die and dont have to care anymore

You reminded me of John Milton and Alexander Pope.

O visions ill foreseen!
Each day's lot's
Enough to bear.

[John Milton]

He was but born to try
The lot of man -- to suffer and to die.
[Alexander Pope]

It were better to be blessed with a more trimphal outllook than be condemned to live a hapless victim under the threat of enduring, unavoidable, and eterrnal tragedy.



M:)RGANITE

[nymphetamine]

Well maybe they and I are related somehow.