Father John A. Hardon, S.J. Archives

Protestantism and Non-Christian Religions

Protestantism in the United States:
I.  Disunity in American Protestantism ^[*]

by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

The multiplicity of separate and independent Protestant churches in the United States is something unique in the modern world, which Protestants themselves are the first to deplore. “The fissiparous tendency,” they confess, “which has characterized the whole of Protestantism has run riot in the United States.” [1]

In view of the recent meeting of the World Council of Churches held in Chicago, it will pay to study at close range the condition of Protestantism in the United States, which may properly be called the testing ground of the world ecumenical movement. On the one hand, the problems facing ecumenism are magnified many times in America - so deep have been the ravages of religious liberalism outside the Catholic Church. On the other hand, in spite of these obstacles, if any measure of success is achieved in the United States, then the world ecumenical movement may take heart and not despair that unity is impossible. Moreover, as one Protestant leader observed, “The problem of achieving unity on a world scale will be solved more readily if many lesser units of world Christianity provide actual demonstrations of church union. The most convenient, natural and promising of these units is the church within a particular nation.” [2]

In the following study, therefore, we shall inquire into the divided state of American Protestantism in order to ascertain how deep and extensive is this fragmentation. Evidently the cure must be suited to the disease; so that if ecumenism is the prescribed remedy, its efficacy can be duly evaluated only if the nature of American sectarianism is first properly appraised.

How Sectarian is American Protestantism?

According to the latest statistics, an estimated 91 million Americans out of a total population of 160 million are church-goers, in the- sense that they are affiliated with some religious body. Subtracting from this figure 31 million Catholics, 5 million Jews and 2 million Orthodox leaves approximately 54 million people who are professedly Protestants. The official figure is 52,890,992.

No one questions the fact that American Protestants are separated from one another in many ways. In the words of a cynical commentator, “trying to describe Protestantism is like trying to describe the United States; one can say almost anything about it.” [3] Protestants range in doctrinal belief all the way from the supernaturalism of the right-wing Lutherans to the agnosticism of the left-wing Unitarians. They range in ritual and worship all the way from the near-Catholicity of the high-church Episcopalians to the barren simplicity of the silent-meeting Quakers. They range in emotionalism all the way from the restraint of the Congregationalists to the dervish exuberance of the Pentecostals.

These differences will here be analyzed from two aspects which may conveniently be called the denominational and the individual. In other words, the divergencies in faith and morals which characterize American Protestantism are not mere conjecture, but may be proved to exist, first among the various denominations, secondly among the members themselves. Or, negatively, it is a demonstrable fact that American Protestants are divided on the fundamental truths of religion, not only because their separate denominations teach and practice contrary doctrines, but because individual Protestants, holding contrary opinions, are tolerated within the same denomination.

I. Numerical Division and Membership of Protestant Denominations

It would be tedious and quite unnecessary to go through all 86 Protestant denominations listed in the Year Book of American Churches. Many of them are so small that most Americans hardly know of their existence. Christ’s Sanctified Holy Church has 28 congregations and 884 members; The Church of the Living God has only 120 members in 6 congregations; The Church of St. Mary the Virgin has one congregation of 800 adherents. In the following classification are listed the 20 largest denominations which represent approximately 90 per cent of American Protestantism.

Major Protestant Denominations in the United States

II. Doctrinal and Ritual Difference

Without attempting a full scale comparison of the fundamental differences among the major Protestant denominations, we can at least touch on their more important discrepancies and classify them according to traditional theological principles:

1. The Nature of God and the Holy Trinity

   At least in their official declarations of belief, the principal Protestant denominations unequivocally subscribe to the first article of the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.” A notable exception is the Christian Scientists, whose pantheistic idealism is summed up in the maxim of their foundress, Mrs. Baker Eddy, that “All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All in all.” [5]

   On the dogma of the Trinity, however, there is less unanimity. Most of the denominations still profess the traditional doctrine; for example, the Episcopalians teach that in the unity of the Godhead “there are three Persons of one substance, power and eternity.” [6]

   At the other extreme are the Unitarians who deny the Trinity, and profess instead that “We believe in the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, the Leadership of Jesus Christ.” [7]

2. The Incarnation and the Divinity of Christ

   In their handbooks of doctrine Protestant churches generally repeat the words of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed declaring belief in “Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary.” But not all subscribe to this. Outstanding in their scepticism about the Incarnation are the Congregationalists. Ironically they are the mother church from which the Unitarians seceded in the 19th century because Congregationalism refused to accept the thesis, “One God in One Person only.” In its latest declaration of faith, the Congregational Church teaches that, “in knowing Jesus,” the early Christians “felt they had come much closer to God than ever before. That was the Son of God.” [8] This is consistent with their modal concept of the Trinity, by which “Christians believe in one God who as Father made all things, as Son showed himself clearly to men in order to lead them away from their sins into a full life, and as Spirit is even now at work in the world and in our own hearts.” [9]

3. Scripture, Tradition and Revelation

   The majority of Protestants reject Christian tradition as a source of divine faith. Article 5 of the Methodist Doctrine, for example, is typical in declaring, “The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” [10] In opposition to this the Protestant Episcopal Church freely espouses tradition. “There is an essential place for tradition,” it says, “in the Christian religion,” because “the guidance of the Holy Spirit has been with the Church in its development.” [11]

   Correspondingly most denominations still recognize the Scriptures as the word of God and of paramount importance for salvation. But there are exceptions. The Society of Friends, or Quakers, as they are popularly called, pay their respects to Jesus Christ, but they place personal experience above the Gospels as a source of religious knowledge. Their founder, George Fox, wrote, “You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?” [12]

   Different again are the Mormons, whose founder, Joseph Smith, is reported to have had a revelation from the heavenly messenger Moroni, directing him to “a book deposited, written upon golden plates.” Translating this mysterious volume into English, he produced the Book of Mormon. Article 8 of the Mormon profession of faith reads: “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” [13] Nor do they stop there. Since heavenly communications are an essential part of their religion, the Mormons not only believe that which “God has revealed,” but “all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” [14]

4. Priesthood and Church Government

   The Protestant bodies in America commonly reject the papacy as of divine institution; but beyond that there is no agreement on the governing office in the church. In general, however, they may be classified in their descending emphasis on the priesthood:

   1. Episcopalians, by definition, proclaim that “a bishop is to be a chief pastor in the Church; to confer Holy Order, and to administer Confirmation.” They also believe that “a priest is to minister to the people committed to his care, to preach the Word of God, to celebrate the Holy Communion, and to pronounce Absolution and Blessing in God’s Name.” [15] The Methodists, founded by John Wesley, and Anglican clergyman, are the largest American church which substantially subscribes to the same doctrine.
      
      
   2. Presbyterians reject the episcopate as a man-made innovation. Their system of sacerdotalism is centered around elders, who are elected by the people and ordained by the laying on of hands. A group of elders and laymen form a Session; and the Sessions of a district - usually 10 to 30 - are organized into Presbyteries, which substitute for the episcopate in all matters of doctrine and worship and jurisdiction.
      
      
   3. Congregationalists differ radically from Episcopalians and Presbyterians in vesting their authority not in a single person, bishop or elder, nor in a group of persons like the Presbytery, but in each separate congregation. “We hold,” they declare, “to the autonomy of the local church and its independence of all ecclesiastical control.” [16] The Congregational idea of church government has been adopted by many church bodies in America, of which the largest are the Baptist communions.
      
      

   American Protestants are no less divided on the question of admitting women to sacred orders. At one extreme, in the Congregational Church there is no sex discrimination. Women are ordained and have been elected to the highest honorary office in the church, the Moderatorship of the General Council. In the introductory rubric to ordination, the ordinal explains that, “Although the masculine pronoun is used, women are eligible to all stages of the ministry in the Congregational Christian Church.” [17] At the other extreme, Presbyterians will have nothing to do with women ministers. Several years ago when a minority effort was made to ordain women, a Presbyterian pastor called the proposal “absolutely contrary to the Bible and to common sense. Women are not temperamentally fit to be ministers.” He added that “Women are not especially good at keeping secrets. Women are apt to be influenced by their feelings in matters of belief and women are usually too kind and sympathetic with other women.” [18] Similar sentiments have been expressed by the Lutherans who never seriously considered having women ministers in their church.

5. The Sacrament and Rite of Baptism

   Baptism in American Protestantism is not generally regarded as essential to salvation. A person is saved dependent exclusively on his interior dispositions, although the Baptismal rite is usually made the first formal step toward becoming a church member. Providentially, when the sacrament is administered, the words used are the correct Trinitarian formula. But there is wide divergence on the manner of administration. Pools for Baptism by immersion may be seen in Baptist, Disciples of Christ and Adventists denominations, which regard Baptism by immersion of the whole body as essential for the valid reception of the sacrament. Most other churches are satisfied with ablution. The Discipline of the Methodist Church leaves the matter optional, directing the minister to “Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.” [19] So tenaciously do the Baptist and Disciples hold to the immersion ritual that Protestant observers consider it one of the main obstacles to sectarian unity in the States: “They invest immersion with the high importance not only of New Testament authority, but of explicit command of Christ. Obviously we have here a really difficult problem as we strive to envisage a united church. [20]

   The same discrepancy exists with regard to infant Baptism. Few if any denominations prescribe Baptism before the age of reason, although most churches encourage the practice, and provision is made for it in the church manuals. Some are unalterably opposed; for example, the Baptists who prefer to be called “Baptized Believers” or “Christians Baptized on Profession of Their Faith.” Their contention is that Baptism is useless unless accompanied by the candidate’s own confession of faith, which is precluded by infant Baptism. In pursuance of this theory, John Smyth, their founder, “baptized himself by applying water to his own head, and then baptized his followers.” [21] Another strange aberration regarding Baptism was introduced by the Mormons. Persons who died before they had a chance to be baptized into the Mormon faith can be baptized by proxy, living relatives or friends being immersed in water and the formula pronounced, instead of the dead.

6. The Eucharist and Holy Communion

   While the denominations are unanimous in rejecting the doctrine of transubstantiation and therefore the Real Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they disagree on what the Eucharist means, on who is to administer the sacrament, and even on the proper elements which are necessary for its consecration. Methodists hold that “The body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.” [22] Congregationalists prefer not to speak of the body of Christ, but rather “when we eat the bread and take the cup, we are to remember Jesus.” [23]

   The consecration of the Eucharistic elements follows logically from the concept of the sacerdotal office in the denominations. Thus, the Protestant Episcopal Church would never allow women and, much less, the laity to “consecrate” the bread and wine for distribution as Holy Communion. But the Congregational and Methodist Churches have made both concessions. Women are admitted to ordination with consequent power to dispense Communion to the people. More significantly, they also provide for the “consecration” of the Eucharist by the unordained laity, men or women, when actively engaged in preaching. The pertinent text in the Discipline of the Methodist Church reads: “An unordained pastor, while serving as a regularly appointed pastor of a charge, may be authorized to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” [24] And the corresponding text in the Manual of the Congregational Christian Churches says, “A lay preacher will not ordinarily administer the sacraments unless especially authorized to do so by the church he is serving, with the approval of the association.” [25] In both churches, therefore, the unordained laity may “consecrate” the Eucharist, provided they are authorized to do so by their local congregation. But where Methodists limit this privilege to students for the ministry, Congregationalists extend it to any preacher, indiscriminately.

   More extreme is the difference in the elements used for the Eucharistic rite. All the denominations who still retain the Lord’s Supper use leavened or unleavened bread. But there is wide diversity as regards the use of wine. Some churches, like the Episcopalians, use wine. Others, like the Methodists, insist on unfermented grape juice. The Mormons even use water. Behind this substitution lies their inveterate opposition to alcohol. The Methodist Church, which prescribes in the ritual, “Let the pure, unfermented juice of the grape be used,” [26] has gone on record to say that, “Our church reasserts its long-established conviction that intoxicating liquor cannot be legalized without sin. The Church of Jesus Christ from its very nature stands at variance with the liquor traffic.” [27] The anomaly which this creates is emphasized by the fact that in the Eucharistic ceremony the minister is required to say the Prayer of Consecration, in which he addresses the heavenly Father in the words, “we, receiving this bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution.” [28]

7. Evidence of Contrary Doctrines Within the Denominations

   The principle laid down by the original Reformers that every man has the right to his own interpretation of Scripture has been operating for four centuries, and perhaps nowhere better than in America are the fruits of this principle more painfully evident. It is not only the denominations which are at variance with each other, but individuals within the denominations are tolerated and “in good standing” although they contradict the most solemn convictions of their fellow sectarians.

   Some years ago, American Protestants organized the Institute of Religious Research, whose task was to inquire into the religious beliefs of outstanding churchmen in each denomination and tabulate their findings with a view to promoting mutual understanding. The results of this study are taken as authentic and serve as a scholarly basis for the ecumenical movement in the United States. Over one hundred tabulations were made, of which the following are typical answers to questions that were asked on fundamental religious beliefs and attitudes: [29]

1. The Authoritarian View of the Church (624 Church Leaders Interrogated)
   “Christ founded the Church upon the basis of a final and authoritative body of revealed truth, fixed in content, to which nothing essential may be added, although new implications and applications may be declared by competent authority in the Church.”

	Per Cent of Replies Asserting Proposition Is:
	False			True
Denomination	Certainly	Probably	Undecided	Probably	Certainly
All Denominations	45.7	15.2	10.7	11.2	17.2
Congregational Christian	71.9	12.5	11.4	1.1	3.1
Methodist Episcopal	56.1	19.5	8.5	7.4	8.5
Baptist (Northern)	42.6	26.2	11.6	9.8	9.8
Disciples of Christ	47.5	15.0	15.0	12.5	10.0
Presbyterian	41.8	16.4	13.4	10.5	17.9
Protestant Episcopal	40.0	17.1	0.0	11.4	31.5
Reformed Churches	41.9	12.9	9.7	22.6	12.9
Methodist Episcopal South	27.6	24.1	0.0	13.8	34.5
Lutheran	6.0	0.0	6.1	27.3	60.6

2. The Unity and Nature of the Church (624 Church Leaders Interrogated)
   “There is but one visible Church, holy, Catholic and apostolic.”

	Per Cent of Replies Asserting Proposition Is:
	False			True
Denomination	Certainly	Probably	Undecided	Probably	Certainly
All Denominations	37.8	16.9	17.1	9.6	18.6
Congregational Christian	46.9	20.8	18.7	7.3	6.3
Methodist Episcopal	46.4	19.5	14.6	7.3	12.2
Methodist Episcopal South	44.9	17.2	10.3	3.4	24.2
Lutheran	39.4	21.2	9.1	3.0	27.3
Baptist (Northern)	41.0	18.0	13.1	9.9	18.0
Presbyterian	34.4	17.9	16.4	10.4	20.9
Reformed Churches	19.4	29.0	22.6	16.1	12.9
Disciples of Christ	25.0	17.5	25.5	17.5	17.5
Protestant Episcopal	17.2	5.7	11.4	5.7	60.0

II.  Concession of Doctrinal Freedom Given by the Denominations

Sectarian apologists claim that the essence of Protestantism is “the freedom of the Christian man,” and its appeal is to “those who are willing to assume the responsibilities of liberty as well as enjoy its privileges.” [30] Consistent with this theory, the denominations openly encourage dogmatic individualism. Unlike the “false freedom” in the Catholic Church, “which consists only in liberty to believe and do what the infallible authority of the church says is true and right,” American Protestants are free to accept or reject, as the Spirit moves them, even what their own denomination proposes as the official doctrine.

A good example is the Methodist Church, reputedly “the most representative church in America.” [31] Methodist bishops describe their organization as standing for “an inclusive Christianity,” which “believes that the things that unite Christians are far more important than the things that divide. It has no exclusive doctrines, rites or ceremonies.” [32] The fact is that Methodism professes an elaborate body of doctrine and form of ritual, but without obligation to accept them.

In 1953, the followers of John Wesley published The Methodist Primer, to commemorate the 250th anniversary of his birth. The Primer is an epitome of Methodism as presently operating in the United States. It is also the most authoritative admission of the dogmatic flexibility of the “most characteristic church” in America, [33] whose “doctrines are broad” and whose broadness covers every phase of religious faith and practice. [34]

Methodism teaches that all followers of Christ may have access to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and that ordination by any established evangelical Church is valid. A letter from any Christian Church may be accepted as the only condition of membership. Any minister in good standing may be invited to our pulpits.

The foundation for this amorphous Christianity is the authority of John Wesley who declared that “the distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort. His assenting to this or that scheme of religion, his embracing any particular set of motions are all quite wide of the point.” [35] What makes a man a Christian is not what he believes, but how he feels. The basis of Christianity is not a “set of notions” immobilized in a dogmatic creed, but a sense of fellowship with “those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.” In the words of Wesley’s famous sermon on Fraternity, “If thy heart be right with my heart, give me thy hand.” [36]

The divided character of American Protestantism deserves to be better known, not only as a vindication of Catholicism whose unity is a reproach to the sectarians, but in order to stimulate the desire for unification among those who have been kept in ignorance of their own dismembered condition. Protestant leaders are slow to explain to their people how disunited they are. When the Federal Council of Churches recently published a “critical and historical study” of the thirty denominations which belong to the organization, they entitled the book, We Are Not Divided. Yet among the members of the Council were Baptists who deny the validity of infant Baptism admitted by all the others, and Episcopalians who admit a valid episcopate which is denied by all the others. In the face of such doctrinal contradiction on matters of divine faith, to still speak of unity is either an abuse of language or an implicit declaration that the Founder of Christianity is the author of inconsistency.

References

Homiletic and Pastoral Review
Vol. 55-#5, February 1955, pp. 376-384

Copyright © 1999 by Inter Mirifica