posted
I was wondering what the names of the different Christian churches mean to the members of that church. I'll list some churches, and wha their names mean to me, an outsider. (well, all but the LDS church, because I am am insider there.)
The Churhc of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints This is the Church of Jesus Christ for the saints (followers of Christ, or simply members of His church) in the last days.
The Catholic Church I understand that the word catholic means "universal". What language does this come from? I imagine that this name didn't come into existance until after the Reformation, and it is meant to convey the idea that this is the one correct, universal church for everybody, even those that have broken off.
The Methodist Church I have no idea what this means. Does the name refer to some method (for salvation, I'd guess) that they teach?
Episcopalian Church This name means absolutely nothing to me, but IIRC, isn't this church the American version of the Church of England?
Jehova's Witness The name of this church says to me that one of the most important tenants of their doctrine is that Jesus is not the same as Jehova, the God of the Old Testament. Also it seems to say that it is important that they witness or share this fact to the world.
Seventh-Day Adventist I don't know what an adventist is, but I know that it is very important to SDA that they keep the sabbath day holy on the seventh, and not the first day of the week.
Pentacostal Church Is there actually a church called this, or is this just a label for many different churches? This name says to me that what differentiates them from the other Christian churches is the importance they place on the types of signes and miracles that was experienced by the early church on the day of Pentacost, such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healings.
The Baptist Church I would guess from the name that the Baptists take very seriously the doctrine of baptism and its necessity for salvation.
I probably didn't even get the names right for half of these. If the proper name for your church is different from the commonly-used one, please correct me.
These are what these names mean to me, an outsider. I would really like to know what they mean to those in the faith. I would also like to know how important you think the name of your chruch is? Does it matter what it's called to you?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Catholic is actually from Latin, and pre-dates the Reformation. It was probably used to contrast with the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Methodist describes the theology of John Wesley (?), aka Methodism, which proscribes a process of understanding God that goes beyond sola scripta.
The Episcopalians (Anglican in the British Empire), I dunno why there is a difference, you could probably google it. Yes, it is the American arm of the Church of England.
Jehovah's Witnesses: They actually deny the trinitarian nature of the Christian Godhead (I think). They claim to have started from people who actually witnessed the crucifiction of CHrist (that actually may be way off).
SDA: As you said; I think the adventist part reflects their belief that Jesus' second coming (Advent) is nigh.
There are churches that describe themselves as Pentecostal, and they are, on the surface, what you described. (By surface, I mean in brief, not as an implication of anything sinister).
Baptists: It is part what you said, but particularly the faact that they believe in Baptism as John the Baptist believed: Baptism of true believers (IOW, no infant Baptism).
I may be off on my descriptions above, but that's how I understand it.
My church: Conbgregationalist. Which is a theology and a church polity structure. Basically, wherever there is a gathering of believers, there is the church of which Christ is the head. As such, each church tends to be rather autonomous, and any two churches can have fairly deifferent worship styles and degrees of theology (some can be quite conservative, others quite liberal, theologocally).
posted
At what point did the Jehova's Witnesses stop calling themselves "Russelites", anyway? What was the reason for the name change? Ralphie? IanO?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Yes I did. But my defense is that I was typing quickly, and the b and n keys are right next to each other. So there.
Moving on...
Sola scripta (or sola scriptura, I forget which), is basically the belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is the sole source of Christian Truth, which can be verified by invoking the Holy Spirit (which of course is described in the Bible). Methodism has a four-part process for discerning Truth. Each part is co-equal with the others.
Honestly, dkw is a Methodist minister, so she could get into the nuances much clearer. I'm just a layman describing a denomination I've never even participated in.
posted
"Episcopal" comes from the latin word for Bishop, I think. In the Episcopal Church, the Bishop has a tremendous say in the doctrine taught in his Diocese.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jehovah's Witnesses I don't think ever called themselves "Russelites". They were the "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" which was really just a bible study group, then formed their own doctrines, etc.
It is true that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a trinity. They believe in Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, and the "Active Power" of God they call the Holy Spirit.
I am not attacking their beliefs, but these are some others:
They believe Jesus Christ was crucified on a straight post up and down.
They believe that Jesus Christ is the only person to have ever been resurrected.
They believe the Star of Bethlehem was an act or sign from Satan.
They believe our sins are associated with our blood and therefore blood transfusions are wrong because you are sharing dirty blood.
They believe 144,000 people only will be saved to live in heaven and that the rest of humanity will live on earth.
They believe only the 144,000 are worthy to take the Holy Supper/Eucharist.
They believe baptism is required for those that have completed their Bible study course.
And many others that seem to be peculiar to their religion.
SDA stems from the "Adventist Movement" from which it sprang. They call themselves "Adventists" because they yearn for the Advent of Jesus Christ.
Not included in their name is the role of Ellen G. White who depending on the person you speak to was either a prophetess, or just a very spiritual woman who had visions, etc. It is not necessary to believe in EGW to be an Adventist as far as I know.
I was wondering about the Mennonites and if they call themselves that, or if outsiders call them that?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presbyterian - this is a reference to church government, these churches are organized into presbyterys and governed by elders.
Pentecostalism has its roots heavily in charismatic worship. IIRC, in the early days it was used almost exclusively to refer to churches that believed speaking in tongues was evidence of "true" baptism.
Now, it's used in a very broad, general sense to describe worship style. So, when someone says "He's a pentecostal preacher" it doesn't necessarily mean he's part of a specific denomination, but rather that there is a charmismatic style to the preaching and worship.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Mennonites do call themselves that, but I don't know if it's their offical name (kind of like the Mormons calling themselves Mormons?). They are a branch of the old anabaptists.
There are a bunch of American Mennonites in Guatemala, who knows why. They run an absolutely fabulous bakery in the city of Quetzaltenango, and I always picked up a handful of their pamphlets whenever I bought anything there.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Methodist” was a (relatively friendly) insult applied to the student groups John and Charles Wesley formed at Oxford because of the methodical-ness of their practices. (It is to our everlasting relief that that is the descriptor that stuck, rather than “Bible Moths,” which was also used.)
“Episcopal” refers to a particular form of church government, characterized by the presence of Bishops. One of the denominations that eventually merged to form the United Methodist church was the Methodist Episcopal church. Incidentally, the word “United” in the denominational name “United Methodist” is important because it comes from the Evangelical United Brethren, one of our other predecessor denominations. That merger was fairly recent, so it’s not at all polite to leave them out.
posted
So the "Adventist" in that name is very similar the term "Latter-Day" in my church. Interesting.
"charismatic worship": When I was in Brazil as a missionary, I talked to some people who said they belonged to the "Igreja Catolica Carasimatica", or the "Charismatic Catholic Church". From what I could tell, it looked just like any of the other pentacostal churches in Brazil, except for their use of the Catholic Saints.
What does the word "charismatic" mean in this context?
Has anybody (Dag?) heard of the Charismatic Catholic Church? They told me that it was part of the normal catholic church, and was just an alternative form of worshipping within the Catholic church.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mennonite is the official name of the religion. Churches are named Mennonite Church USA, Mennonite Church Canada, etc.
Mennonite and its earlier versions, Menist or Mennonist, is derived from Menno Simons, the major leader and organizer of North European Anabaptism.
Posts: 862 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the Mennonites are named for their founder Menno, isn't that right? Such names are usually not self-applied, from what I have read, but they may have adopted it willingly once it began being used.
posted
There is a charismatic movement in the Catholic church and it involves "charisms" as a sign of being spirit filled but otherwise remaining within the orthodox practices of Roman Catholicism. The Church basically takes no postion on it, saying you can worship that way if you like.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Charismatic” means “gifted” and is applied to any group that emphasizes the “gifts of the holy spirit.” In practice it most often means speaking in tongues. There are charismatic movements in most of the major denominations.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, my definition of charismatic worship is worship that is focused on praise and blessing, and outward and enthusiastic demonstration of things like healing by laying on of hands, and speaking in tongues.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another definition some may be wondering about:
Calvinism
A doctrine named after, coincidentally, John Calvin. Its roots are in the Protestant Reformation, and the central beliefs of Calvinism are usually referred to as the five points of Calvinism and is remembered by the acrostic TULIP.
1. Total Depravity 2. Unconditional Election 3. Limited Atonement 4. Irresistable Grace 5. Perseverance of the Saints
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
TULIP is particularly cool since it was developed at a synod in the Netherlands.
Btw, I have sitting on my desk the 11th edition of the Handbook of Denominations in the United States, from which I can give you the history of the names of any of the 350 or so denominations and sub-denominations present in the US in 2001. So if there's any particular one anyone's curious about, just ask. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, how new is the 11th edition? I bought one edition of it a couple years ago... Would that be the 10th or 11th? It's a blue, thick paperback, IIRC.
-Bok
EDIT: Looking at Amazon... Maybe I have the 9th edition? I am so woefully out of date, though maybe I have the green 10th edition, and I am colorblind.
posted
Reposting a list from this thread, the denominations that are listed as Pentecostal Churches (by heritage) in the Handbook are:
General Council of Assemblies of God Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ Bible Way Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, World Wide, Inc. Christian Catholic Church Christian Church of North America, General Council Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) Church of God in Christ Church of God of Prophecy Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, Inc. Church of the Living God, Christian Workers for Fellowship Church of the Living God, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, Inc. Congregational Holiness Church Elim Fellowship Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches and Ministers, International Independent Assemblies of God, International International Church of the Foursquare Gospel International Pentecostal Church of Christ Open Bible Standard Churches, Inc. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. Pentecostal Church of God Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church, Inc. United Holy Church of America, Inc. United Pentecostal Church International Vineyard Churches International
Bok, mine is red hardback with a mostly white and red jacket, published in 2001.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you asking about the Churches of Christ who were part of the Stone-Cambell movement, or the United Church of Christ formed by merger of four denominations in 1957?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
We never referred to ourselves as "Russellites". When Charles Russell (in the 1870's) formed a group for Bible study and began collect and publish what we consider Biblical teachings, they referred to themselves primarily as "Christian". The primary US publishing agency they eventually formed, and which Russell financed primarily with his funds, (incorporated in 1884) is today know as The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. As the number of groups grew, they also called themselves "International Bible Students". In other countries, the names of national agencies representing our interests and owning printing facilities vary.
"Russellites" was more a derogatory name, as was "Rutherfordites", after the 2nd President of the Watchtower Society Joseph Rutherford. We have also been called "Millenial Dawners" based on a series of books, "Millenial Dawn" that we published in the late 1800's and that were distributed widely.
In 1931 we adopted the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" because we felt it clearly identified who we were and what our purpose was. That is not to say that before that we did not witness for Jehovah. But that was the culmination of it and crystalized what we felt our purpose was.
As to theology, there were a few things wrong, CStroman (though I know no offense was intended).
quote:They believe that Jesus Christ is the only person to have ever been resurrected.
Not true. We believe many people have already been resurrected. The bibilical accounts list such people that Elijah and Elisha resurrected, Jesus and the daughter of Jairus, Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain. Peter raised Dorcas and Paul Eutychus (sp?). We also believe that after Jesus become king of God's Kingdom (which we believe happened in this century) those who had the heavenly hope and were already sleeping in death began to be resurrected to heaven.
But, and this may be what you are referring to, the earthly resurrection, we believe, will not begin until after Armageddon.
quote:They believe our sins are associated with our blood and therefore blood transfusions are wrong because you are sharing dirty blood.
Again, not true. We do not believe sins are associated with blood. We believe that blood is sacred and has always been sacred. We believe that God restricted the usage of blood beginning with the laws given to Noah. He expanded on this with the Mosaic law, emphasizing that the soul, the life, was in the blood. Blood had one non-biological use: to be used in sacrifce in a redemptive manner. We believe that this prohibition on blood was then carried over into the Christian system (as opposed to laws regarding the eating of fat, unclean animals, sacrifice, etc) when the Christian Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) reiterated this stipulation. We believe that the usage of blood in any form, as food, for medicine, etc, violates this prohibition.
However, I can understand that that might be hard to believe, especially to medical professionals. To that end, Jehovah's Witnesses have set up hundreds of Hospital Liason Committees to facilitate doctor-patient relations in this manner and to promote and research bloodless medicine alternatives. Much success, both in terms of doctor-patient relations and bloodless success, has been had. More information can be found [url=http://www.watchtower.org/medical_care_and_blood.htm]here[/here].
mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Isn't that the name that they still use when they publish their version of the Bible?
The Watchtower publishes many versions of the Bible: The King James, The American Standard, Steven Byington's Translation, and the Emphatic Dioglott, in English. In other languages, too, though I can't remember the names (other than Rhiems Douay).
The version that Jehovah's Witnesses translated is called the "New World Translation" and is published in a few forms: A standard cross-reference, an Footnote version (sort of like a Greek or Hebrew Master Text, with footnotes giving alternate readings from other manuscripts and detailed apendices and indices), and an Interlinear Version like the Emphatic Dioglott, giving the English New World Translation reading on the left, the Wescott and Hort Greek on the right, and a word-for-word translation under each Greek word. I think the standard NWT is published in at least 25 languages.
The name "Russellites" does not appear anywhere in any of the translations published by Jehovah's Witnesses.
posted
All I have to add to this discussion is to say that the word "Catholic" is from Greek, not from Latin, and that it was in use centuries before the Protestant Reformation.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I'm not sure. All I know is that my parents were members of The Church of Christ- they don't talk about it anymore. I'm guessing it's not the United Church of Christ, since they never referred to it that way.
Posts: 862 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for clarifying Ian! I had no idea that "Russelite" had been a derogatory term.
Out of curiosity, what is the Jehova's Witness stance on stem cell research? I know that one avenue of stem cell research uses stem cells isolated from bone marrow rather than from aborted fetuses, and I think that if that avenue is able to be fully developed, it will quiet the complaints of most who currently object to the research. It occurs to me, though, that Witnesses might still be opposed to it, given that bone marrow generates red blood cells. Or maybe not, since it isn't actually blood.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
IanO -- what is the version of the Bible that you guys give out to a lot of people? Is it your NWT?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes thanks Ian. I knew some of the practices, but was wrong on the principles.
The resurrection thing I was referring to was the Resurrection of Saints that is referred to:
Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
I meant this resurrection and what happened to them.
EDIT: I'm so glad we have a Jehovah's Witness in the forum to clarify things.
posted
Yeah, primarily we use NWT. Though of course we are encouraged to have and use a number. I personally have about 30 different versions, including some original language versions (a Hebrew Interlinear of the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia Master Text).
As to Stem Cell Research, we have fairlt strict beliefs regarding abortion and thus research based on materials from aborted fetii would be objectionable (but given that we take no political stands nor are doing the research ourselves, it hardly impacts our day-to-day lives.) However if treatment were based on material from fetii, obviously we would not use it.
As for bone marrow, as with any transplants (or fractional elements of blood, like anti-bodies or elements derived from those fractions, like anti-venom) we believe that it becomes a conscience matter. The scriptures simply indicate, to us, to obstain from blood. But what happens when you start breaking blood down into miniscule parts that may or may not also come from other parts of the body, etc? For that matter, bleeding an animal for eating will never remove all traces of blood and we believe God knew that when he gave the command. So we believe such things become conscience matters. Neither the Watchtower Society nor the elders can or will tell us what we should decide. These are personal decisions and no one should be criticized for whatever they decide. We try to avoid stumbling others (as in Paul's mentioning of food sacrificed to idols and the various practices) but such "grey" areas are personal and each of us is responsible for ourselves. The same can be said for many other aspects such as birth control.
posted
The thing that's of interest to note is that besides the Catholic Church, the majority of all the churches listed are "American" churches sprung from american religious movements.
It thought that was an interesting observation.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coccinelle, they’re part of the “restoration movement” that seeks to go back to the beliefs and practices of the New Testament period. They don’t consider themselves a denomination, so they have no headquarters or governing body, but the congregations do cooperate to support missionaries, colleges, nursing homes, etc. Like most of the restoration churches, their name comes from the fact that they consider themselves a restoration of the true Church of Christ, not a division or offshoot of another denomination.
We’ve got a few Church of Christ Hatrackers, who I’m sure would be happy to elaborate.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The name or appellation that confuses me the most is "nondenominational." Either I don't know what it means, or I suspect a large majority of those claiming that status are full of it.
Wait. That sounds harsh, and I don't mean it to. I just mean that I think some people/churches like to use the term because they think it sounds good, like they're more pure than other churches, but they use it in a way that has little to do with what the word actually means.
Okay, maybe I don't even know what I mean.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It means not affiliated with a denomination. Some people consider that something to be particularly proud of, others don’t.
It’s also sometimes used by organizations that want to have a chapel or service that’s open to all Christians, regardless of denomination – like a non-denominational chapel at an airport.
Recently I’ve seen it used (on wedding websites ) to mean a sort of wishy-washy Christianity that will let you write your own wedding service and not have any pesky rules about secular music, strapless dresses, or non-member weddings. I think most of the people using it that way are thinking of the airport-chapel definition, and are going to be very surprised when they start calling non-denominational churches and find out that many of them are more strict about such things than the denominations that they (the brides) are avoiding.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw:"It means not affiliated with a denomination."
That's the way I would use it, too. To me, a nondenominational church would be local, independent, and have no affiliation with any central church. It might not require adherence to a specific statement of beliefs from its members, but then again it might.
But I have been frequenting religious-themed message boards for several years now, and I have detected a sizeable trend among certain brands of Christians to shy away from any mention of denominations. These same people think "religion" is a dirty word. They don't belong to a religion, sect, or denomination. I don't think many of them even understand what these words mean.
They seem to think that the very fact that a church is large in scope, with many congregations in many places, all sharing a name and certain basic doctrines, means that that church is corrupt, phony, and getting away from what Christianity is all about. I suspect that many of these people do in fact belong to denominations, perhaps even very large, organized churches, but that they have adopted the term "nondenominational" to suggest purity.
One way they take advantage of this is when they get into a discussion of specific beliefs. They are able to criticize the beliefs of another church, but when a member of that church inquires about their own membership, they can simply say, "Oh, I attend a nondenominational church", implying that there is no body of doctrine which the other person can examine. Better yet, they claim that their only doctrine is the Bible; implying that any church that accepts a stated set of doctrines is automatically non-Biblical.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I belong to an unaffiliated church - we are not not a part of any denomination. But we, use the term "independent" instead of nondenominational to avoid being lumped into the type of washed-down Christianity that dkw is referring to.
We consider ourselves an independent, Bible-based protestant church.
Edit to add: but we do have a doctrinal statement.
Our independence is due not to doctrinal differences but rather government. Originally, when formed, it was a member church of the Presbyterian church, but became independent back when the split into PCA & PC-USA occurred.
[ October 08, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the word Independent used in that sense. Much better than the games people play with Nondenominational.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Random note: my church at home was nondenominational because we were divided on the subject of infant baptism (half of the church was Baptist, half was Presbyterian). We tried at one point to be admitted to the PCA, but were not able to because they needed us to have a single unified belief as regards to baptism. /random
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
blacwovle, we are very open about the issue too. We (as in hubby and I) had our infants baptized. Most people in the church do not.
There is no requirement that you be baptized to join the church, though if you've never been baptized before it's highly recommended that you do so, as a public statement of your faith and out of obedience. But, since we don't teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, we don't have any strict requirements on it.
It's funny, because many people that join our church or that wish to be baptized want to be immersed, so we have to borrow the Baptist church down the road for a special service.
Our church really tries to practice the principles that we say we were founded upon.
In Essentials:Unity In Non-Essentials:Liberty In All Things:Charity
Our doctrinal statement contains the essentials, you must accept those, but beyond that, we are very lovingly tolerant of people who might have a different view on baptism, for example. We have a healthy number of five-point Calvinists who worship side by side with Arminians that have strong pentecostal leanings. We have tons of theological debates, but somehow they never turn into arguments.
I've been involved in more than one (imagine that! ) and I have heard Christians say to one another "I could not disagree with you more. But you're my brother and I love you." Its' quite beautiful.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya'll are right on about the meaning of Seventh-day Adventist. We believe in the 7th day Sabbath and look forward to the 2nd Advent. (Incidentally, on October 22, 1844, the church's forefathers had the "Great Disappointment," when Jesus DIDN'T come. Miller discovered later that the date he had calculated from prophecy referred to Jesus entering the Most Holy Place for the Judgement rather than the 2nd coming.) Those are only two of our differences, though.
About the Catholic church, it does mean universal. I remember a professor in college explaining how one of the queens in England (Victoria, perhaps) was responsible for the Book of Prayer, and it made everybody happy because the protestants could say "catholic church" and the Catholics could say "Catholic church." Nice little compromise.
Did you know that nearly all if not all other denominations have Seventh-day versions of their churches? Seventh-day Baptist is the one I hear of most often.
quote: Pentecostalism has its roots heavily in charismatic worship. IIRC, in the early days it was used almost exclusively to refer to churches that believed speaking in tongues was evidence of "true" baptism.
Almost. Speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Pentecostalism places great emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit, as described in 1 Corinthians 12.
The pentecostal/charismatic movement is made up of over 530 million members in over 700* denominations worldwide. Most of these are doctrinally identical, and are seperate only in administration (for example, the Assemblies of God and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada are exactly the same thing; a pastor ordained in one can be a minister in the other).
Pentecostalism is more prevalent in third-world countries than in industrialized nations; there are more women than men; and there are more members under the age of 18 than there are over the age of 18.
If you're curious and want more information, try the Assemblies of God (USA) website and browse around.
----
* My memory is a little fuzzy on that number, but I think it's somewhere around there. I'm remembering most of this from sitting in on one of my dad's classes (Assemblies of God : Doctrine & History).
The bishops are important. Anglicanism started in England. Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife but the pope would not let him because of his wife’s ties to the Holy Roman Emperor. So he named himself the leader of the church of England. The next few monarchs had different beliefs about religion so it became different then the Catholic church. Episcopalians are American Anglicans.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Catholic" comes from the Greek, like Verily said. "katholikos" I think was the original. It was in use very very early on - at the latest, by the second or third century AD, and I'm pretty sure it was earlier but I can't confirm that right now.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Coccinelle, DKW has it right...the churches of Christ are the result of an attempt to reconstruct the original church in terms of its doctrine and basic practices. (We recognize that certain practices are derived from the surrounding culture but believe they can be distinguished from things that are commanded by God by careful study.)
Technically speaking, the term "churches of Christ" is more a descriptor than a name, and theoretically we could use a variety of other terms--most of which, however, have already been adopted by someone else. Early on there was a debate about whether the most appropriate term to use was "churches of Christ" or "disciples of Christ", with the latter focusing more on individuals. For a while both terms were used, but eventually usage came to depend mostly on whether one followed a strict or loose interpretation of the Bible. The loose-interpretation group took the name "Disciples of Christ" at the split around the turn of the twentieth century, and we kept "Churches of Christ".
The name was also partly intended to make it difficult to affix any term but "Christian" to the members, as we did not want to be distinguishable from the general body of Christ. Unfortunately this has led to a lot of problems...people assume that we are being arrogant...and so a number of workarounds have been developed, most of which are awkward or sound silly. In the past we have also been called "Campbellites", but this is rarely used anymore because we found it so objectionable; we do not consider Alexander Campbell to be our founder in any proper sense. (And in fact several groups of churches of Christ are not descended from his movement at all, though most have now been influenced by it.)
On the term "nondenominational"...
We usually use "undenominational"; it's not an attempt at making a distinction but just that we predate the common use of "nondenominational" and we made up our own word. Either way, I think most churches who use such a term really are trying to set themselves apart from the numerous divisions that have grown up over the years. It's not so much an expression of arrogance, just a desire not to divide the Body further. One can argue that the means is ineffective or even counterproductive, but the intent should be taken into account.
In practice, most churches of Christ have come to use the term "denomination" to refer to churches that we believe have doctrinal problems rather than the common usage. It's something that developed over time, as divisions came to be blamed on the adoption of improper doctrine. We do also have a purely congregational structure; most of our organizations such as colleges are actually privately owned by groups of members, and there is no central headquarters or any official above the congregational level.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
) to mean a sort of wishy-washy Christianity that will let you write your own wedding service and not have any pesky rules about secular music, strapless dresses, or non-member weddings. I think most of the people using it that way are thinking of the airport-chapel definition, and are going to be very surprised when they start calling non-denominational churches and find out that many of them are more strict about such things than the denominations that they (the brides) are avoiding.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
