30,000 Protestant Denominations?

Due to popular request and to the ongoing distortion of figures from uninformed Roman Catholic apologists writing on this issue, I am posting the following excerpt from my forthcoming book, Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002).

Throughout this book we have examined 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.

Protestants are united in belief on the essentials of the gospel message.

What about homosexuality? What about gay "marriage"? What about living in carnal sin (shaking up)? What about dancing, drinking, card playing? What about abortion? You all have disagreements about these things. I have heard Various Protestant ministers bless these very things which are anathema to others. Do YOU bless any of these things? Do you think they are contrary to the essentials of the Gospel message?

We have anathematized no other believers.

I have heard so many Protestants anathematize ALL the others or pick certain groups of Protestants and say they are going to hell and that others are not Christian. Heck, there are protestants here on this forum who say that all who go and see the Passion are apostate idol-worshipers and at risk of going to hell just for seeing it.

We consider all believers to be part of the body of Christ.

Tell that to a typical Baptist (God bless them). Perhaps YOU believe that all Baptized Christians are a part of the body of Christ. But, in that, you certainly do not speak for all Protestants. You do, however, come closer to official Catholic belief on that matter.

... no Protestant alive today envies anything Catholic.

And how do you know what is in the mind and heart of EVERY Protestant, my friend? That's a pretty big and diverse group. One might safely say that there are Catholics who envy some things Protestant (I have heard them), and some Protestants who envy some things Catholic (I have heard them also).

The world is not as neat and clean as we would want. That would make it easier to understand, but it simply is not true. Protestants are extremely diverse in their views. So are Catholics, but there is an authority to tell us (Catholics) when we are wrong. You, my Protestant brother, have no such authority, because you can just interpret your authority however you want to according to your own personal wants and whims and weaknesses and strengths and moods and conveniences and momentary arguments. And if some pastor in your church says you are wrong, you can just go down the street to another pastor who says you are right. We Catholics cannot shop for our own "tolerable" version of Jesus. We are stuck with the version He gave us.

Whatever mistakes we all make, and we ALL make them, He is in charge, and He is infinitely loving, just and merciful. Together, you and I have hope in that.

God bless you, brother, and may we, by His mercy, embrace each other in heaven.

Stepping back and TRYING to look at this objectively and analytically (I’m an analyst by training) I would say Mr. Barrett classified Catholics and Protestants major heading through its dogma. Hence there are some (non-Roman) Catholics not included under the “Catholic” category probably because their dogma didn’t match that of Roman Catholics. Once the dogma was established and the major classifications defined, I believe Mr. Barrett defined denominations based upon the rites of the church.

The Catholic Church seems to have a much larger and defined set of dogma and a limited set of rites. IMO you see yourselves as not having denominations because everyone follows the large set of dogma and only deviates in minor places through the rites. These are trivial to you and do not affect your core dogma which is substantial. Consequently you see yourselves as one church.

Meanwhile, you Catholics level charges at us Protestants as saying we have no dogma and think we have 400,000 independent denominations floating around in the cosmos. Protestants just have a very limited set of dogmas and a much broader set of rites. The careful analysis presented in this report shows that Mr. Barrett was able to classify only 21 denominations as Protestant (verses 12 for the Catholic Church).

The argument as I see it is that Catholics bristle at the thought of having denominations since all the churches follow the core dogma which is substantial. On the other hand, we Protestants have found a teensy-weensy technicality and, of course, we’re exploiting it. :O)

From an analytical standpoint this to me is interesting. When the Catholics put down something like sola scriptura this riles us Protestants because you’re treading on a Protestant dogma. Hence, we go bonkers and put aside our different rites and go into combat mode. Since you Catholics have many dogmas there are lots of things us Protestants can do to drive you crazy. Baptism seems to be one of these issues since it is viewed in the Catholic Church as a dogma but in the Protestant church as a rite.

In other words, they acknowledge their dissent and disobedience from Church teaching. This is different from claiming, as you do, that there is no Church teaching that is knowable.

This is a lie. Why do you persist?

Contrast that with the Protestant, who lives and dies by his own reading of Scripture. Barring insanity, there is no possiblity of dissent from your own internal authority. There is also no acknowledged doctrinal unity, beyond bromides.

Names?

REG, as soon as Newsweek polls and the disobedience of individuals become sources of infallible doctrine, you may have a point.

Allow me to quote Quester once again.

"Protestants are united in belief on the essentials of the gospel message."

Do you see anything there which would indicate "infallible" or "required" doctrine? While I may not have worded it exactly the same as Quester it is clear he used the qualifier "essentials of the gospel message". In your haste to find a "gotcha" you took a leap beyond logic.

I pinged nate on the other thread to find out what non-Catholic definition he prefers to use. And one exception does indeed disprove the rule.

An exception to what? A generalization?

You, Quester and every other non-Catholic Christian can sing your unity song until your voice gives out. But you can not change the reality that there is no unity on the essentials of the Gospel message.

Is baptism symbolic or efficacious? That is an essential. Is Christ present in communion? That is essential. Did Christ die for all men or some preordained men. That is essential.

Or have you redefined the word "essential"? Talk about a leap beyond logic to arrive at a "gotcha" conclusion.

This is different from claiming, as you do, that there is no Church teaching that is knowable.

This is a lie. Why do you persist?

Why don't you read your own posts? You continually trot out your platitude that all Catholic dogma is written in a way that it is ultimately deniable. This means that it is unknowable, if it has no definite meaning.

Stand up for your own words.

What if one were baptized as a Catholic, and was for a period of time a practicing Catholic, and his reading of Scripture caused him to abandon Catholicism, to deny the Real Presence, Immaculate Conception. Bodily Assumption, Papal Infallibility, etc. Would this person be a "Catholic" in your estimation?

Everybody who is baptised Catholic is irrevocably marked as a Catholic. But such a person, to say the least, would not be a member in good standing. A first generation protester against the faith is the most culpable of those caught up in the Protestant revolt.

You, Quester and every other non-Catholic Christian can sing your unity song until your voice gives out. But you can not change the reality that there is no unity on the essentials of the Gospel message.

Is baptism symbolic or efficacious? That is an essential. Is Christ present in communion? That is essential. Did Christ die for all men or some preordained men. That is essential.

Or have you redefined the word "essential"? Talk about a leap beyond logic to arrive at a "gotcha" conclusion.

We are aware that Protestants and Catholics disagree as to what is essential belief.

If we agreed with you, we would, likely, be Catholics.

Protestants regard none of the differing opinions on the points you have mentioned as violations of our unity.

Catholicism does not decide what we hold to be essential ... we base that on the scriptures.

So, while you may disagree ... we agree ... and enjoy the unity borne of that agreement.

God bless.

LOL. So in other words, in order to 'boost' their 'apologetics,' Catholics will define the term 'Protestant' to best suit their purposes.

By the way. . .

"Mainstream protestant clergy that refuse to vote against abortion??? Ordain openly Homosexual ministers???"

A member of a church that has covered up pedophilia for years should be a bit more careful throwing stones.

"What about homosexuality? What about gay "marriage"? What about living in carnal sin (shaking up)? What about dancing, drinking, card playing? What about abortion? You all have disagreements about these things."

So do the priests/bishops in the RC. What's your point? Just because the pope has one belief on these issues doesn't mean that is what is being taught by priests/bishops throughout the RC.

As an example, I would point you to the RC parishes in San Francisco who openly welcome homosexuals and have even performed 'blessing of the union' ceremonies for them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.