Let me take a denominational aside before I continue on with typology the next day. Below is something that I posted on another blog.
In passing the World Christian Database run from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary shows the USA as having the highest number of Christian denominations within its national borders. The second highest number of denominations is India, a well-known mission destination, and they have only 1/3 the number of denominations. We are far and away the country that has least been able to express the unity of the Body of Christ in any viable way.
The numbers actually indicate something about our “Christian” culture. You see, the fact that we have such a multiplicity of denominations indicate that we are a people unwilling to compromise or even to see possible alternate interpretations of Scripture. Another way to put it is that we have a presupposition that what each of us considers truth is so important that it is somehow a violation of our integrity to even agree that there could be an alternate interpretation or that someone else (like the Church) could possibly have any authority to speak into our lives.
And so, we continue to talk about the unity of the Body of Christ. However, in practice we clearly give the impression in this culture that we do not believe in any such thing. More than that, our multiplicity of conflicting views on what Scripture actually says to this culture that there is no truth. And, so, sadly, in our supposed pursuit of truth, in our supposed standing for what God wants, in our supposed faithfulness to preserving what God has established, we have actually harmed the Kingdom of God immeasurably. We have elevated truth far beyond our human capacity to know truth.
You see, we are limited. We are finite, not infinite. We are bound by severe limits. Those limits include culture, understanding, finiteness, the inability to acquire all knowledge, etc. There are things that are True. But, historically the Church has been actually rather conservative in declaring dogmas–yes, yes, I know all the arguments about the Roman Catholic Church–precisely because of its recognition of our finiteness.
Does this mean that there are not legitimate differences between Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestant? There are legitimate differences. But, there are not as many differences as the number of USA denominations. And that is the crying sin of our American Christian culture. For all our vaunted faithfulness to truth, for all that we give tons of money to missions, for all our sophisticated outreach, for all our many Christian radio stations, TV stations, and communications techniques, ultimately we fail a very important test. May God have mercy on us.
Don’t you believe that Christ can take care of His Church?
The truth will make it’s own way.
Fear not.
He can, all too often in spite of our sin. Remember, that the same God who exiled Israel until they learned their lesson is the same God who allowed the Church in parts of the world to be swiftly destroyed by the Muslims, the same God who allowed the Reformation, the same God who . . .
While I find it theologically comforting that God will take care of His Church, I also am quite conscious of some of the ways in which He took care of Israel in order to make sure that they followed His ways rather than theirs.
I want to thank you for making us all think, Fr. Ernesto.
First, America has never had a Christian culture. It has been built on profit from it’s earliest settlement, and the formation of the republic was based on the protection of business and free enterprise. Every move we have ever made, both nationally and internationally, has been based on the protection of our business interests. Christianity was and is tolerated only to the point that it doesn’t interfere with business.
Going along with that, we have always had a large number of denominations, as immigrants brought their churches with them. The Methodists skyrocketed from zero to the top denomination in the US in only a few decades. Other sects have branched off as well: Friends, Mormons, etc. There was very little RC presence here until the 1840’s. Lots of diversity, lots of splits and disagreements.
Now, is that diversity bad? Would America be better off with a monolithic religion? Has the UK flourished under the Church of England? Many other countries under RC? I’m not so sure.
No question, we have a congregation for every whim these days. I have over a dozen within 15 minutes designed to evangelize the unchurched suburbanites, complete with trendy, non-threatening names. Are they effective individually? Would they be more effective in one congregation? We tend to use para-church organizations to knit everyone together for community service, which is wrong in my eyes, but still sorta works.
I have (as usual) more questions than answers. But, I think that our individualism is both a strength and a weakness, and is reflected in our worship, and always has been from the start.
I was not arguing for a monolithic religious in the USA, though, in principle, I do not see that as a necessarily bad thing. It is particularly American to knee-jerk at the thought of a limited number of options.
Notice that I said that there were legitimate differences between the five major divisions of Christianity that I listed above. My argument is that it does not take three times as many denominations as the next nearest country in order to ensure truth. Rather, that much division obscures, even totally hides, truth.
We divide over every micro-theology as though it were so important that I could not live, or compromise, with anyone who could possibly hold something different. Every difference in emphasis on practice means that I must divide because only my practice, which may be nothing more than a preference, must be the one used.
No, I have few good things to say about our hyper-divisiveness. And the other option is not a monolithic religion. That is the straw man with which we beat up anyone who speaks of our clear national sin. We could lose two-thirds of our denominations and still be in about the number one slot for number of denominations in one country. If we lost five-sixths of our denominations, we would still not even be near the bottom of the list, but merely near the middle, at over 100 denominations.
I suspect over 100 denominations would still provide sufficient variety to prevent a monolithic approach.
One of the denominational differences that I find interesting is worship styles: in times past, various denominations split because of worship differences. This side wanted instrumental music – but that side only wanted vocal singing (the “Church of God” split that way); or liturgical words – this side wanted “altar” and “priest” and that side wanted “table” and “pastor” (the Reformed Episcopal Church did that in the 1880s). I’m noting this b/c there were times when the EOC and the RCC both acted as if to worship differently was to be a different church (remembering the meaning of “Orthodoxy” as “right worshipping”).
At other times it’s been doctrine that splits us: I remember a meeting of Jerry Falwell with Soul Force which was supposed to include a lunch, but some of the fundies said “we can’t eat with sinners” (unlike Jesus) so the meeting lasted 4 hours without any food being served.
We are a sad people. Sometimes I wonder that God has any care at all for us.
I have good things to say about the diversity of the church – but nothing about our divisiveness. I think God glories in the different worship styles and, even, in the different theologies and ecclesiologies. But he is slain, daily, by our bickerings.
Which brings up a question I’d like to ask, Father. Do we have jurisdictional loyalties, or are we all Orthodox? I ask because when I register for a forum, I’m not sure what to answer when it asks for jurisdiction: Do I give the jurisdiction of my first church in which I was chrismated (Antiochian), or my current parish jurisdiction (OCA)? And the other reason I wonder is (here comes that Catholic guilt I can’t shake) I just found out that there is a new Antiochian mission five miles from here. Should I forsake my parish for the mission out of jurisdictional loyalty?
We are all Orthodox. Simply put down the jurisdiction in which you are currently involved.
Now, the same does not apply to those who are ordained, because we make specific vows and promises.
Because the Orthodox are still basically ethnic, this means that, in practice, those of an ethnic background tend to go to the jurisdiction of their ethnic background. This is not necessarily bad, as if there were a Spanish-speaking Orthodox parish, I would so want the bishop to assign me there. But, all too often, there is an inappropriate pride in ethnicity that leads to an inability to accept those of another ethnic background. This is, of course, very sad, but is easily found in the USA. That is why the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding was so popular among ethnic Orthodox. It rang a bell in them.
You should not forsake your parish out of denominational loyalty. If you are happy and at peace, stay where you are. You are Orthodox. If you freely and without guilt feel that you would like to help out the new mission out of old friendship or old memories, then talk to your priest. He will probably happily send you to help out. But, if there is guilt involved then tell Satan to get behind you. GRIN.
By the way, there is always the possibility that God may be gently calling you to help out over there. But, if that were to be true, then you would still talk to your priest. Do not just make the decision on your own, as it is all too easy to convince yourself of anything, particularly when it concerns God.
I think I misunderstood your original post, Fr. Ernesto. Going back and re-reading it, then looking at the GC site that has 653 denominations for the US (!), I see your point more clearly. Since it’s a pay site, I have no idea what criteria they use for a “denomination” (maybe someone can clarify that) but I find it hard to believe those are all viable denominations. If anyone could provide a list, it would be interesting to look at.
The word “monolithic” which you took exception to was an unfortunate choice. Probably a reaction from a deep part of me, from my Baptist upbringing and their fear of a state religion from their earlier oppression. And, you’re right, it was a knee-jerk reaction. I didn’t mean it as a straw-man argument, but it did come out that way as a result of my failure to carefully read your post.
I have to admit, I’m as guilty as anyone. I’m still “shopping” for a church that I agree with, with the proper measure of social action, theology, liturgy, and sense of the sacred. I’m as caught up in the consumer “I want it MY way” mentality as anyone else (although I really hate to admit that). But, you guys are teaching me a more excellent way….
I cannot prove it, but I believe that those are all viable denominations because I have read numbers higher than that in other publications. But, they tend to include groups that may have only one or two churches, but call themselves a Church. Gordon-Conwell is a bit more careful than that.
Thank you, Father. I’ll pray about it, but I suspect I’ll stay where I am. There are 61 Orthodox parishes within an hour’s drive of here, and if I had felt the need to shop, I would have done so before settling into my parish.
ROFL, with 61 Orthodox parishes, one almost wonders why another one is needed! Stay where you are and rejoice in the Lord! 🙂