There
are
39,000
protestant
denominations,
each
laying
claim
to
the
truth!
Question: Which version of Protestant truth should I
believe ?
Answer:
The Roman Catholic apologist’s primary
argument against
sola Scriptura and
Protestantism;
namely, that sola Scriptura
produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant
denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of
the
premise that in fact there are
25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this
figure is
correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it
compares
apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address
before we can
close; namely, the correctness
of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.
When this figure
first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000
Protestant
denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000
Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated
to
28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel
content
simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous
adherence
to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a
basis
for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or
will be,
in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?
I have posed this
question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic
apologists, none
of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases,
one Roman
Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another
Roman
Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic
apologist about
the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the
former
apologist as his
source for the
figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long
suspected that,
whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant”
were
being defined in a way that most of us would reject.
I have only
recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure
independently.
All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make
appeal)
ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A.
Barrett’s World
Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions
in the
Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed.
David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work
is both
comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite
enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation
of the
Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly
disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this
area really says.
First, Barrett,
writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in
1980, and
projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985.
This
represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year
(Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not
tell us
(most likely because he does not know) is that most of these
denominations are non-Protestant.
Barrett identifies
seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct
denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which
accounts for
223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196
denominations; (3)
Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White
Indigenous, which
accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240
denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s
Witnesses,
Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which
accounts for
1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for
504
denominations.
According to
Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within
Protestantism—not
25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim.
Barrett
is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this
number will
continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic
projection of an
annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this
figure is
misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct
denominations” as
any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another
group
(such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns,
and
another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).
No doubt the same
Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous
25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite
the
revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there
might
actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet
that is
precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism.
Moreover,
Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this
number can be
broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”—and that
was only
in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant
denominations; a
difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman
Catholic
apologist’s method to “project” a figure for the current day, we could
no doubt
postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today!
Hence,
if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is
splintered
into 8,196 “bickering” denominations, then they must just as readily
admit that
their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering
denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they
would
rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic
denominations there is “unity,” then they can have no objection to the
notion
that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.
In reality, Barrett
indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body
that
retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist
denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant
figure. Yet
the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them
(in
Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there
are ten
Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them
are
identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in
jurisdiction.
This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent
denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist
denominations are
counted separately from all other
Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of
difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s
count of
Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in
1970, by
which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a
distinction
is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and
practices.
However Barrett has
defined “denomination,” it is clear that he does not think of these as
major
distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category.
In
addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above),
Barrett
breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have
significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical
traditions,” and
what we might normally call a true
denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major
ecclesiastical
“blocs” (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1)
Catholic
(Non-Roman), there are four
traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old
Catholic, and
Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are
six traditions; for (4) Non-White
Indigenous, which
encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of
Christianity
mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there
are twenty
traditions, including a branch of Reformed
Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there
are nineteen
traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic,
there are sixteen
traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite
catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic,
Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean,
Ruthenian,
Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic.
It is
important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic
traditions (i.e., true
denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant
traditions
(i.e., true
denominations). In
other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism
is
twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman
Catholic
is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that
puts the
total number of actual denominations in the world at
ninety-two—obviously
nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists
constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman
Catholicism
(Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all
denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an
additional
sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major
ecclesiastical
blocs.
As we have shown,
the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations
and
perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on
jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously,
neither of
those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence,
Barrett’s
broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant
denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a
much more
realistic calculation.
Moreover, Barrett
later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a
considerably
smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations
is
concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to
sola
Scriptura (most
Protestant
denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing
the
authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any
comparison
that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola
Scriptura as the guiding
principle of authority, and Rome as
the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier
is a
false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e.,
Evangelicals) to
Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as
defined
by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal
conversion
experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith
and
living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology
(Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett
provides no
breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However,
when he
addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down
into four
major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in
the
organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin
American
Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional
Amerindian
paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard
themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman
Catholics who
are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic
spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can
be
supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics
(represented by
almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics
(represented
by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman
Catholics
(represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman
Catholics
(those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).
In any case, once
we inquire into the source of the infamous
25,000-Protestant-denomination
figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point
Barrett
compares true
denominations and
differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman
Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as
Protestantism,
and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing
field
significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic
apologists
wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and
perhaps
even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman
Catholicism.
Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the
fact
that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has
twenty-one; and
he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has
no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism
has at
least four major divisions.
If the Roman
Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within
Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at
least 2,942
(perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman
Catholicism.
In any case, he cannot
compare
the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or
even
twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman
Catholicism (as a
single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a
single
ecclesial tradition).
In short, Roman
Catholic
apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result,
irresponsibly—glanced
at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all
sorts of
absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon
reading
this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument
to bed.
The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument
will come
about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and
correct
it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or
later they
will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous
figures
in a public forum.