The Division in Christianity

[Glaurung]

A common sentiment I see here is the notion that Christianity is hopelessly divided in its teachings. That there are "thousands" of sects all of which teach mutually exclusive things. To be sure, the divisions are a scandal, but I think these divisions are often overstated. There is a historical Christian orthodoxy agreed upon by most mainstream Christian traditions. Yes, there are serious disagreements among them: nonetheless Catholicism, Orthodoxy and most forms of traditional Protestantism agree on quite a lot in regard to who Jesus was and what God expects from the human race in terms of moral conduct.

That we have seen the emergence of bizarre cults mostly originating in the United States these past two-hundred years is not an argument against the existence of a Christian orthodoxy. A Jehovah's Witness ranting about "Churchianity" and "Christendom" does not prove that the Christian tradition is bereft of any and all agreement. The proliferation of sects (mainstream and heretical) is a mostly Protestant phenomenon. Catholicism and Orthodoxy - which together comprise majority of the world's Christians - still exist and maintain the historical faith more or less intact.

 

[loverofhumanity]

My belief is that all the religions were able to become universal until disunity appeared within. Every religion that has appeared has had plenty of time to unite humanity but have failed. I believe that Baha’u’llah will succeed because His teachings are focused on accepting all religions as truth and all humanity as one family.
‘
“every religion of the past was fit to become universal. The only reason why they failed to attain that mark was the incompetence of their followers.”

(Baha’i Writings)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To be sure, the divisions are a scandal, but ...

Why so?

 

[Glaurung]

Why so?

Both Scripture and the Nicene Creed state that there is only one Church. That this Church has splintered is an unfortunate reality. A reality that I think is beyond human power to fix at this point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Both Scripture and the Nicene Creed state that there is only one Church. That this Church has splintered is an unfortunate reality.

You call it a scandal and an unfortunate reality. I suspect it was natural if not inevitable. I also suspect that 4th century Christianity would have been unrecognizable to a 1st century Jewish sect leader, but that's a much different topic.

 

[Glaurung]

You call it a scandal and an unfortunate reality. I suspect it was natural if not inevitable. I also suspect that 4th century Christianity would have been unrecognizable to a 1st century Jewish sect leader, but that's a much different topic.

I agree with you on the first point. Human sin being what it is. I disagree on the second. I would not be a Christian if I believed Jesus were but the merely human leader of a first century Jewish sect.

 

[Quintessence]

Didn't Catholicism in spur a ton of syncretic Christian-Pagan/Indigenous practices? Aren't those sects?

Maybe I just don't get the issue as a non-Christian.

 

[Glaurung]

Didn't Catholicism in spur a ton of syncretic Christian-Pagan/Indigenous practices? Aren't those sects?

What spurred this thread was a comment by a user in another thread created by a JW. The claim is that Christians can't agree on anything therefore Christianity must be bogus. I reject this premise. Historical Christian orthodoxy is fairly well defined across most of the mainstream traditions. That there are a multitude of cults (and yes, I consider Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses to be cults) does not prove the non-veracity of Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Jimmy]

A common sentiment I see here is the notion that Christianity is hopelessly divided in its teachings. That there are "thousands" of sects all of which teach mutually exclusive things. To be sure, the divisions are a scandal, but I think these divisions are often overstated. There is a historical Christian orthodoxy agreed upon by most mainstream Christian traditions. Yes, there are serious disagreements among them: nonetheless Catholicism, Orthodoxy and most forms of traditional Protestantism agree on quite a lot in regard to who Jesus was and what God expects from the human race in terms of moral conduct.

That we have seen the emergence of bizarre cults mostly originating in the United States these past two-hundred years is not an argument against the existence of a Christian orthodoxy. A Jehovah's Witness ranting about "Churchianity" and "Christendom" does not prove that the Christian tradition is bereft of any and all agreement. The proliferation of sects (mainstream and heretical) is a mostly Protestant phenomenon. Catholicism and Orthodoxy - which together comprise majority of the world's Christians - still exist and maintain the historical faith more or less intact.

Absolutely. I know, a lot of people here always throw that out there about the thousands of sects and this great division. It’s ridiculous.

 

[Glaurung]

Absolutely. I know, a lot of people here always throw that out there about the thousands of sects and this great division. It’s ridiculous.

Fragmentation is an inevitability when there is no teaching authority empowered to make definitive rulings on faith and morals. That Protestantism has fragmented into countless denominations is a valid argument against it. It fails as an argument against Christianity itself though.

 

[Jimmy]

Fragmentation is an inevitability when there is no teaching authority empowered to make definitive rulings on faith and morals. That Protestantism has fragmented into countless denominations is a valid argument against it.

Jesus is that authority imo

 

[Glaurung]

Jesus is that authority imo

That's an utterly meaningless statement when there is no authority to bind anyone to any view on what Jesus said or willed.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

We are a family and families have disagreements on things. Like Saint Augustine said: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.

​

 

[Jimmy]

That's an utterly meaningless statement when there is no authority to bind anyone to any view on what Jesus said or willed.

Ok

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Ok

You are right; for us Jesus is the ultimate authority and it is pretty clear what our ultimate authority wants us to do: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Simple as that.

 

[1213]

A common sentiment I see here is the notion that Christianity is hopelessly divided in its teachings. ...

Maybe Christians should remember these and follow Jesus instead of someone else:

I say this to move you to shame. Isn’t there even one wise man among you who would be able to decide between his brothers? But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers! Therefore it is already altogether a defect in you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? No, but you yourselves do wrong and defraud, and that against your brothers.
1 Cor. 6:5-8
For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it. For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.
1 Cor. 11:18-19
For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers, by those who are from Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” and, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
1 Cor. 1:11-13
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone who doesn’t follow us casting out demons in your name; and we forbade him, because he doesn’t follow us.” But Jesus said, “Don’t forbid him, for there is no one who will do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For whoever is not against us is on our side.
Mark 9:38-40
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
John 13:34-35

If we are on the side of Jesus, we are on the same side.

 

[Glaurung]

@1213 I don't find lists of decontextualized Bible verses to be a compelling form of argumentation. My point is that the historic faith is not as obscured by division as some critics of Christianity contend.

 

[Quintessence]

What spurred this thread was a comment by a user in another thread created by a JW. The claim is that Christians can't agree on anything therefore Christianity must be bogus. I reject this premise. Historical Christian orthodoxy is fairly well defined across most of the mainstream traditions. That there are a multitude of cults (and yes, I consider Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses to be cults) does not prove the non-veracity of Christian orthodoxy.

Fair enough. Frankly, I don't feel that being "well defined" has anything to do with the legitimacy of a religious tradition to begin with so it wouldn't concern me too much. Many religions are non-creedal and non-dogmatic, meaning disagreement within the tradition is not only normal but expected. I guess it would be different in creedal and dogmatic traditions of Christianity, granted, but that still wouldn't make any of it bogus on my view. Just sounds like a nonsense attack on religion that doesn't hold water.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A common sentiment I see here is the notion that Christianity is hopelessly divided in its teachings. That there are "thousands" of sects all of which teach mutually exclusive things. To be sure, the divisions are a scandal, but I think these divisions are often overstated. There is a historical Christian orthodoxy agreed upon by most mainstream Christian traditions. Yes, there are serious disagreements among them: nonetheless Catholicism, Orthodoxy and most forms of traditional Protestantism agree on quite a lot in regard to who Jesus was and what God expects from the human race in terms of moral conduct.

That we have seen the emergence of bizarre cults mostly originating in the United States these past two-hundred years is not an argument against the existence of a Christian orthodoxy. A Jehovah's Witness ranting about "Churchianity" and "Christendom" does not prove that the Christian tradition is bereft of any and all agreement. The proliferation of sects (mainstream and heretical) is a mostly Protestant phenomenon. Catholicism and Orthodoxy - which together comprise majority of the world's Christians - still exist and maintain the historical faith more or less intact.

It just tells me there is no God in communication whatsoever with Christianity.

 

[Glaurung]

It just tells me there is no God in communication whatsoever with Christianity.

Strictly speaking, I consider apostolic succession to be a requirement for a true church. (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy). Which is something I've been alluding to this whole thread. The ancient faith is still being kept by all the aforementioned communions. God seems to be preserving that faith as he promised he would. You can't judge Christianity by a fragmented Protestantism, which at its core is a sixteenth century protest movement.