Why Are There So Many Denominations?

"I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me." John 17:21

Jesus Christ began His Church, founded on the confession first uttered by Peter, that He was, "The Christ, the Son of the Living God." This one Church was imbued with power at the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This one Church endured the persecution of the Jews in the first century and that of Rome in the second and third. This one church fought back heresy and assaults from without and within and endured, by God's grace, through all that the enemy brought against it. 

This One Church, militant and triumphant, that Jesus promised will withstand the buffets of the armies of darkness, finally suffered its first failure of unity, not because of an outside force, but from the weight of its own multi-national and multi-ethnic diversity with the schism of 1054 AD.  The split of the church into two main units: Roman Catholicism in the west and Orthodoxy in the east, would result in a cascade of further fractures and divisions in the centuries that followed. 

In the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries, several reforming groups found causes to leave the Roman Church for various reasons, the most profound being under the leadership of Martin Luther on All Saints' Day in 1517.  Since then, schism and fracture have seemed to be the theme of the One Church of Jesus Christ.  While Satan has not triumphed, it seems that human discord has.   

What does this fractured state say about the health or even the reality of the One Church that was begun by Jesus Christ?  To those raised in a particular tradition of Christianity, the reality of thousands of denominations can easily become a matter of self-referenced prejudice.  They belong to the "true" church, naturally, and all the others are "wrong" to varied degrees.  To the new convert to Christianity considering which church to attend, the options seem dizzying. To the skeptic disposed toward doubt about the claims of Christ, this fractured mosaic of a faith might seem like proof positive that there was nothing real in the words of Christ in the first place. 

 

This article will attempt to address the diversity of faith streams present in what is by aggregation called "Protestant Christianity."  Just how many streams this represents is hard to define. If you consider root movements that themselves represent a collection of denominations, there are truly less than twenty main movements within Protestantism. However, if you consider all of the multiple divisions within these movements, it is possible to see estimates several orders of magnitude higher.  Some of these higher numbers are doubtlessly hyperbolic, counting as denominations single churches that have broken fellowship with other movements over trivial matters. Still, you can't get around the idea that there are too many protestant denominations to keep track of or to understand in any depth.  While other authors have addressed the question of the numerous protestant denominations from an historical narrative approach, discussing the splintering of movements into multitudes as a chronological retelling of division, this article will lay out the questions that tend to divide protestant groups without a narrative focus.  The truth is that the same question might divide multiple faith traditions at different points in history, so understanding the question is more useful than understanding multiple instances in history when this question has become divisive. 

It should be noted at the top of this discussion that this article will only address denominations or faith traditions that fall under two broad umbrellas: Creedal Christianity and Protestant Christianity.  There are other groups that claim the name of Christian but either deny the creeds or do not ascribe to what Martin Luther laid out as his principal reason for protesting the actions and theology of the Roman Church in 1517.  Many faith traditions that had splintered off of Catholicism in unique moments not associated with the Lutheran Reformation have since come to ascribe to his points of difference so that the "5 Solas" are a point of unity for a great majority of non-Roman churches.  By excluding Christian traditions that are non-creedal and non-reformational, I do not mean to insinuate that these churches are not Christian (although on an individual basis,  some are not); it simply lies outside the scope of this article to attempt to address all possible contemporary manifestations of Christian faith. 

The following diagram represents the overall flow of the issues discussed in this article. For a downloadable copy of this image for future reference, follow this link. 

Interpretive Lens:

One of the most significant divisions among Protestant Christian groups is the lens through which they view the overarching narrative of the Bible and the pursuit of God to make for himself a people. It is clear that, in the Old Testament, God chooses a family through which to work His plan of redemption. Through many twists and turns, this family becomes the Hebrew people, Israel.  Out of this family arises the Messiah, Jesus Christ.  Through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension the offer of eternal life is extended to all people, not just the Hebrews.  To this, all Christians agree.  

The difference comes in how we see the relationship between what God did before Christ through the Hebrew people and what He does after and through Christ for all people. There is a spectrum of positions on this question, but the broadest generalization of the perspectives falls into two main categories: dispensationalism and covenentalism. 

The covenantal view is more historical and sees the New Testament Church as the only people of God in the modern age. The Jewish people, by rejecting the Messiah, have ceased to be, as an ethnic identity, the chosen people of God. Jews are only in a covenantal relationship with God if they individually also become Christians. Retrospectively then, all of the covenant promises of the Old Testament cease to have bearing on non-Christian Jews in the modern age. The promises to land, a Davidic king, and a Messianic period of perfection on the earth are for the Church, not ethnic Israel.  This is commonly referred to as "replacement theology."  Several other distinctive positions, to be discussed later, typically accompany this interpretive lens, but they will be left for their appropriate point in the conversation below. 

In contradistinction to this, the dispensational view, which only arose as an organized system in the 1800s, sees the promises of God in the Old Testament to the Hebrew people as still fully in force for them as an ethnic group.  Obviously, salvation is only by faith through Christ, so Jews who reject the atonement of Christ are not saved.  This tension is resolved by believing that at some point in the future, there will be a national revival of faith in the Messiah for the huge majority of ethnic Jews, as is prophesied in Romans 11. This national revival is seen as one of the main objectives of the great tribulation described in several OT passages and the majority of the content in the book of Revelation.  In a sense, then, God has two covenant people, although, at the current moment, only one (the Christian Church) has placed their faith in the work of His Son.

These are broad-stroke generalizations.  Different nuanced views on this spectrum abound, but these generalized differences will be sufficient to illustrate how large-scale interpretative differences on these questions can lead to people reading the Bible differently enough that it is hard to sit under one another's teaching without taking objection, frequently, to how various passages are interpreted.  

Church Polity

The next main division has very little to do with theology.  Rather, it is a matter of practical organization of the movement. 

Some have looked at the model of the New Testament Church and have seen in it an organizational example structured around the leadership of a plurality of elders over each individual church.  This organizational style is commonly called "elder-led".  Alternately, the movement has been called "Presbyterian governance,"  named after the Greek word for "elder," πρεσβύτερος.  This is the namesake feature of the Presbyterian denomination, which was born at least in part as a reaction to the alternate model of church governance then dominant in the land.  Key features of an elder-led church would be the rejection, or at least the strong limitation, of a hierarchical system of church leadership.  The local council of church elders at any one church would have great authority to lead and structure that local church according to their convictions and the leading of scripture and the Holy Spirit without needing to conform to much of an overall pattern given them by some larger assembly. 

The alternate Biblical model for church leadership sees the model of Apostles giving guidance to multiple local churches in the New Testament and fully embraces a top-down model of leadership.  Church hierarchical leaders and administrators see themselves as the heirs of the Apostolic office and therefore have the right and duty to shape church policy for those local congregations under their leadership.  This model is called "bishop-led" or "Episcopal," deriving their name from the Greek word "episkopos," ἐπίσκοπος, which means "overseer."  Interestingly, many occurrences of the words "episkopos" and "presbuteros" seem to be made interchangeably in the New Testament.  The two different church polity models then simply emphasize different characteristics of what, textually, are the same office. 

The third major church political model is driven by Western political ideals, not by extrapolation from the New Testament.  As the ideal form of political government in the West has more and more emphasized the consent of the governed, Democracies or Republics have been seen as morally superior to other forms of government.  This has impacted the organizational models of many church movements, which have adopted a congregational approach in recent centuries. This model puts the power of church leadership in the hands of the local congregation, with church members voting to set policy and doctrine.  

Neither of these three main models is monolithic.  There are nuanced views on all of these.  Some denominations plant their flags squarely on a political model (those that name their movements after one are obvious examples).  Others will allow freedom of conscience in church government within movements that orient themselves more around doctrinal positions. 

Soteriology

This distinction has perhaps caused the most emotional heat in conversations between people as it is debated. All Christian movements being discussed in this article agree that we are saved "by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone," Martin Luther's rewording of simple texts such as Ephesians 2:8-10.  Those on the fringe edges of this spectrum might slap their forehead at what their opponents say about how salvation is transacted, but they both agree that the other is within the fold of authentic Christianity. Still, the differences in these two views are real and have caused much debate, division, and discord among the body of Christ. 

The older historical view among Protestants is commonly called "Calvinism," named after the French-Swiss reformer John Calvin. In fact, this view was so common among reformers of the 16th century, that "reformed theology" has become a moniker for it.  This system, in the broadest terms, puts all the effective weight for why an individual is saved on the will of God to save that individual person. All people are seen as starting life in a situation of "total depravity." They are sinful to the point that they are unwilling and unable to desire a relationship with God.  In this fallen state, they will journey from the cradle to the grave without moving toward Christ in saving faith.  They cannot, and they would never desire to do so on their own. Only the interrupting love of God stands in the way of the damnation of all of humanity. God chooses certain individuals, because of no distinguishing feature of their own, to open their eyes to their sinfulness and the offer of redemption in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  These people thus regenerated turn from their sin, as an act of their will, with perfect fidelity, and embrace Christ in faith, thereby being saved.  Since it is the will of God that underwrites their faith and not their own, and since the will of God is irrevocable, these elect believers will never fully or permanently fall away but will persist in their faith until the end of their lives and will be glorified with Christ in heaven with complete certainty. 

 

Roughly 100 years after the Protestant Reformation, a Dutch theologian took exception to the way that Protestant theology had downplayed the real and free exercise of the human will in the process of salvation.  While the  Bible clearly taught that God was the author of salvation, Jacobus Arminius asserted that it is the free exercise of our wills that is effective in turning an individual believer toward saving faith in Christ. The key difference was the timing of the regeneration of the heart in the two systems.  Calvin taught that God needed to regenerate a heart in order for that heart to conceive of the gospel and desire faith.  Arminius taught that there was enough grace available to fallen man before the exercise of their faith (which he called "prevenient grace") to allow fallen mankind to choose Christ and repent before they had been regenerated. Since it is the will of men, which can be changed, that underwrites the faith of that individual, it is possible for people to choose faith in Christ and be saved and then later to choose to reject that faith and lose their salvation. 

It is an interesting fact of history that the followers of Jacobus Arminius were put on trial for their views in the overwhelmingly Calvinist context of seventeenth-century Holland. Their theological defense occurred at the Synod of Dort in 1610.  In this historical period, sadly, it was not uncommon for theological dissidents to be punished or even executed for differences in belief. The synod of Dort, however, while upholding the Calvinist doctrine that represented the majority of thought, did so without imposing any punishment on the Arminians. This quietly acknowledged that the Arminian view, while different from Calvinism, was not heresy but simply a different reading and interpretation of orthodox faith.  This "agree to disagree" result of Dort allowed the mainstream growth of this theological system to the point that it is the view of some of the largest Protestant denominations today. 

Worship Experience

This is, of the topics thus far discussed, the least theological.  However, it is near the top of the list because it represents a major reason why individual Christians sort out into different faith expressions.  The Bible's instruction to New Testament believers as to how they ought to worship are entirely internal and spiritual, having to do with attitudes of the heart and motivations, not at all about service format, musical instruments used or not used, or musical style or tempo.  Differences between worship experiences therefore are entirely preferential and traditional.  One can worship Biblically in any of the numerous options available.  Still, people feel very committed to what best facilitates their worship, and they will gravitate to what helps them best encounter the Living God.  This isn't a problem, so long as the Body of Christ can resist vilifying those who worship in a different setting. 

The most historic mode of worship currently available in any prominence is an established liturgy.  Many of the traditions most closely associated with their Catholic heritage have retained a liturgical format.  In this mode, the service is composed of recitations of creeds, written prayers, and prescribed call-and-response exchanges between the congregation and clergy.  Songs tend to be scripture-centric, usually employing psalters as a primary source. The focus of a liturgical service is to anchor the experience of the worshipper in the historical church and the common experience of all believers. Usually, worship services are set for a movement uniformly by the administration of that church in published liturgies that are organized months or even years in advance. Liturgical churches often follow a common calendar of readings and prayers meant to correspond to the seasons of the year.  

Non-liturgical churches represent a wide spectrum of experiences.  Some non-liturgical churches are also very concerned with maintaining a historic feel, although not following a uniform liturgical publication.  These churches may also recite creeds or passages of scripture.  Their song choices will come from a hymnal of curated songs and readings that align with their doctrinal convictions

More and more non-liturgical churches are opting for a more contemporary worship format.  While readings may still happen, the song choices reflect modern musical styles and sensibilities.  These modern musical styles may or may not be accompanied by increasingly complex staging and lighting support.  At the cutting edge of these sorts of worship experiences, one may see the same kind of lighting, staging, and video intensity as they would encounter at a major recording artist's concert. 

Again, the Bible instructs us in none of the trappings of how our worship ought to look.  Right Biblical worship can happen in any of these contexts.  The attitude and posture of the heart are what is dictated in scripture, not the style of music.  The sorting out of people into these styles has driven the rise and fall of whole movements of the church in recent history, so this difference is important, even though it not strictly-speaking a theological one. 

Spiritual Gifts

As has been described elsewhere, the historical position of Protestant Christianity since the Reformation has been to hold that the "sign gifts," also called the "gifts of power" or "miraculous gifts" of the Spirit generally ceased after the Apostolic age.  This position is called "cessationism."  The Cessationist position identifies most of the described gifts of the Spirit as being for the purpose of validating the Apostolic mission in the early days of the church.  They argue that after the church was established in much of the ancient world and the canon of scripture was recognized and agreed upon, the utility of the sign gifts as a means of validation diminished.  This position does not say that God cannot or does not work miracles in the modern church age.  Rather, it teaches that these miracles, wrought at the will of God, are not a gift resident upon an individual who can perform them at their will, as the Apostles are thought to have been able to do. 

This was a universally held position within the Protestant movement until the mid-1800s when a few unassociated groups in Europe experienced a resurgence of the gift of tongues in worship.  The most well-documented of these events was what has been called the "Tongues Revival" of Scotland in 1830.  These events remained fringe and a source of raised eyebrows until they were not only matched but surpassed in magnitude by the birth of the charismatic movement in America, centered around the Azusa Street Revivals of 1906. 

Following 1906, churches in several distinct denominations saw cessationsim exchanged for a position that has been called "continuationism." Broadly speaking, these faith traditions argue that the gifts present in the early church are still available today.  The spectrum of belief and practice on this question is very wide.  More conservative movements will agree that the gifts are all extant in the church but will erect strict boundaries based on scripture around how and when they ought to be practiced.  These movements tend to prefer the term "charismatic" to describe their practice. 

More liberal portions of the continuationist camp would say that gifts like tongues are not only available today but are the first sign that the Holy Spirit has come upon a person.  All true believers, therefore, ought to speak in tongues and prophecy. These movements prefer the term "Pentecostal" to closely identify themselves with what the Spirit did in Acts 2. While many Pentecostal churches are orthodox in their belief, there have been some dangerous theologies and practices developed in this vein that deny key creedal doctrines and therefore are rightly seen as non-Christian. 

Baptism

This is an old point of difference between Protestant Christian traditions.  There are two different theological understandings about Baptism.  Both can be supported by scripture.  Both are orthodox, in that they fit within creedal Christianity.  However, the two views of Baptism lead to very different experiences about who should be baptized, when they are to be baptized, and likely how they are baptized. 

The dominant historical Protestant view is that baptism replaces circumcision as the outward sign of the covenant for the people of God. This obviously borrows heavily from a covenant interpretive lens (above).  As such, just as children were circumcised as infants before they were able to place their faith in the God of Abraham, children in this view ought to be baptized to place them within the covenant community before they are able to express faith in Christ. Baptism does not reflect the condition of the heart of the baptized person.  It likely reflects their membership in the "family of faith" in a covenantal setting.  Their parents (or godparents) are participating in a ceremony to place their child in the covenant people of God and pledging to raise them in such a way that they will, at a later point, express a personal faith in Christ.  Because it would be cruel to immerse a child only a few days old in water, baptism in these traditions is done by sprinkling or pouring. Different churches of this tradition vary slightly in what they teach is the end result of baptism.  Some would say that it is purely symbolic, as was circumcision.  Others teach that this moment reverses the curse of original sin in the life of the child, enabling them at some point to turn to faith, which would not otherwise be possible. 

The alternate view began with the movement of the "Anabaptists" in the 1520s. These reformers taught, much to the ire of the majority of Christian reformation leaders, that one ought to be baptized after one makes a positive declaration of their faith.  While this view started as a minuscule fraction of the Protestant church, through much tribulation it has emerged as the dominant view of most of the Protestant faith traditions today.  According to this interpretation scheme, only believers are to be baptized.  Consequently, baptismal participants are old enough to hold their breath and be plunged underwater.  Therefore, baptism by immersion is the normal mode in these churches.  As with the alternate position, the significance of the rite varies among baptist movements.  Some teach that immersion is the moment of salvation.  More commonly, it is seen as an outward representation of what has happened by faith at an earlier point. 

Biblical Authority

This reality of this spectrum of belief is a newer phenomenon in Protestant Christianity.  In a nutshell, this is the "so what?" question.

In the past, it was more likely than not that a Christian, once convinced that the Bible taught something, would submit themselves to it and hold on tight.  This is why there were such things as religious wars in the past and why heretics were burned.  We would never think to do such things today.  For the record, I am not advocating that we do. Still, it was assumed that theology was an authoritative discipline that controlled the life of those within the Church. That has changed. 

 

Today, there are multiple voices speaking about the moral and religious values of modern Christians.  Culture is becoming more and more unhitched from a rigidly Christian (or rigidly religious in any sense) worldview.  Now, when we are convinced that the Bible teaches something, we have an additional step in our spiritual growth.  Will we accept this teaching, or won't we? 

Various churches and faith traditions put differing weight in the teachings of the Bible vis-a-vis cultural norms.  We might call these more conservative or progressive churches, but those terms carry political shades of meaning that are not always appropriate. 

A brief example might suffice to illustrate this.  The historical teaching of the church has always been (until the last 150 years) that the office of elder or pastor is a masculine role. Male pastors and elders have been the universal practice of Christianity until recent times.  Culture has moved past a strictly patristic leadership in many modes, and for the most part, this is a good thing!  Women ought to be able to be CEOs, governors, business owners, and heads of state. The Bible says nothing about that.  However, the teaching of the Bible is clear with regard to the office of elders or pastors.  That is a job for men.  

A brief example might suffice to illustrate this.  The historical teaching of the church has always been (until the last 150 years) that the office of elder or pastor is a masculine role. Male pastors and elders have been the universal practice of Christianity until recent times.  Culture has moved past a strictly patristic leadership in many modes, and for the most part, this is a good thing!  Women ought to be able to be CEOs, governors, business owners, and heads of state. The Bible says nothing about that.  However, the teaching of the Bible is clear with regard to the office of elders or pastors.  That is a job for men.  

Some people, moved by cultural advancement in the causes of women's equality, have sought to find ways to make the Bible say that a woman pastor is fine.  They can't do it cogently.  It's simply not what the Bible says. 

 

Others have agreed that the Bible teaches male headship in the church but have simply said that "we've evolved beyond this." The Bible says what it says, but they choose not to heed its teaching. This is the reality that is relatively new.  For a committed Christian to understand the Bible's clear teachings and to reject its authority would have been unheard of two centuries ago. Today, churches vary not just in what they think the Bible says but in the weight that they give that teaching over their lives and practice. 

Unlike many of the spectrums discussed here, the diversity of thought on Biblical authority does not represent a disagreement wholly among creedal Christians.  Many faith traditions, having historically lain within orthodoxy, have sadly left the faith by dismissing what they know the Bible says as irrelevant in light of modern cultural norms. 

Communion

This is the oldest division among Protestant Christian Groups, but it is discussed near the bottom because it does not provide nearly as high a barrier to modern Christians as it once did.  In the moments after the birth of Protestantism, there were two main movements away from the Roman Church that were both growing rapidly.  One, headed by Martin Luther in Germany would later become the Lutheran Church.  The other, headed by John Calvin in Switzerland would become the Reformed Church movement.  The two leaders agreed on almost every point of their individual protests against Rome.  They loved one another and wrote affectionately about each other in publications.  However, an attempt to merge their two movements failed for one reason: they saw the meaning of communion differently, and it mattered to both of them. 

The Catholic view that both reformers inherited as their baseline was that, in the miracle of the mass, when the communion elements are held up by a priest and prayed over before they are distributed, the bread and wine became, in real physical fact, the body and blood of Jesus, although they appear unchanged.  This doctrine, called transubstantiation, was developed by Catholic theologians based on John 6:55-57. 

"For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." --John 6:55=57 NIV

This is one of those passages where your commitment to literal or figurative reading drives what you do with this passage. A literal view led many to conclude that bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but rather Christ's body and blood.  

Luther continued in the teaching of the Catholic Church on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and taught that they became, in fact, the body and blood of Christ.  Calvin differed, preferring rather to accept Christ's "real presence" in the elements without asserting that the material had changed in any way.  Calvin and his followers called this "consubstantiation."  This was the only reason that there continued in history two main branches of the Protestant Reformation rather than one. 

In modern times, the school of Calvin has seemingly won the day.  Lutheranism is one of only a handful of Protestant faith traditions today that continue the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.  Almost everyone else has some variety of symbolic views.  The emphasis on symbolism and allegory in the interpretation of John 6 grew over time so that, today, most churches would be uncomfortable even with Calvin's degree of literal reading.  Most modern movements today would see the Lord's Supper as a memorial or symbolic moment entirely, with no need to invoke an actual presence of Christ in the elements whatsoever. 

Eschatology

The study of "last things" has been massively historically divisive. Like communion, however its recent ability to drive wedges between Christian groups seems to have been blunted.  According to the creeds, what orthodox Christians must believe is that Christ is coming again to judge the world, at which time there will be a physical resurrection of all mankind to everlasting life in either damnation or glory. 

" He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead." --The Apostle's Creed

"He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end." --The Nicene Creed

"He is seated at the Father's right hand;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    At his coming all people will arise bodily
    and give an accounting of their own deeds.
    Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
    and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire." --The Athanasian Creed

These things are clear due to the sheer volume of repetition in scripture from numerous authors and multiple literary types within scripture. The specific working out of these plans is shrouded in apocalyptic imagery that demands some sort of figurative or allegorical interpretation.  Again, the application of these images varies wildly depending on how much literal reading is undertaken of these passages versus allegorical reading and what one does with the allegorical portions that one accepts as such. Numerous schools of thought have arisen within orthodox Christianity.  What follows is a broad overview. 

One prominent view sees all of the content of the Book of Revelation as being written to the 1st-century church to explain the traumatic events around the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70 and the soon-coming Roman persecution and eventual triumph of Christianity over Pagan Rome through the reforms of Constantine. This view, which sees all of Revelation as accomplished in the past, is called "Preterism."

The alternative view is to see some varying amount of the imagery of Revelation and Daniel as lying in the future, both of John's generation and our own.  Broadly defined, all other views are some variety of "futurist" interpretations. 

The three broad categories of futurist views differ on what to do with the prophecies in the Old Testament and the book of Revelation about the Millennial Kingdom of Christ and the Great Tribulation. Covenant theologians, almost uniformly,  interpret almost all eschatological expectations in an allegorical sense.  The Great Tribulation is a poetic picture of the efforts of Satan to stamp out the church which were especially intense early in its history and have continued more or less ever since.  The hope of the Millennial Age is to be found in the expansion of the gospel in the modern church age.  Christ is currently ruling and reigning on earth through His church.  Christian traditions that allegorize the Millennial reign and the tribulation entirely fall into a camp called "amillennialism."  Such groups do not expect much if any prelude to the final return of Christ in judgment.  It could happen at any time. 

Other groups take a more literal reading of passages from the OT and Revelation and see the necessity for a real Millennial Kingdom on earth (although it may not be 1,000 years long) and a real period of explicit tribulation that proceeds it.  The more allegorical of these views do not see a fixed timeline of tribulation followed by a fixed timeline of perfection. They see the events starting in AD 70 and following as fulfilling the expectations of the great tribulation and the emergence of the church militant and triumphant after this season as the dawn of the Kingdom age.  They expect that the gradual spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth, in fulfillment of the great commission, will culminate in a state when all nations bow their knee to Christ and the political and "secular" institutions of man are redeemed and sanctified by Christians operating in them.  At such time, Christ will come (after this figurative Millennial reign), will judge resurrected mankind, and will inaugurate the eternal state.  This view, called "Postmillennialism" is the most optimistic of all eschatological systems.  Christianity will consistently win more and more as time goes on until all are saved and worshipping Christ on earth. 

In stark distinction to this, the most literal eschatological interpretation, driven by Darby's desire to read the Bible as literally as possible through the lens of dispensationalism, is rather pessimistic.  Despite the continued spread of the gospel to all nations, this last view sees the general decline of society's moral fabric continuing until society is again largely corrupt, as it was in the days before the flood of Noah.  This moral decay will lead to the outpouring of God's wrath in a literal period of 7 years, called the Great Tribulation.  This will be followed by the second coming of Christ to the earth and the inauguration of a literal 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom on earth which fulfills all the promises of the Old Testament to Israel.  This literal Millennial period is then followed by the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the eternal state.  Because this view contends that Christ will return before the Millennium can begin, it is called "Premillennialism." This is the most pessimistic view of the fate of the current age, as it expects the decay of our moral fabric to continue unabated until the wrath of God is poured out.  

While many malign this view because of its historic novelty (nobody held this view until the 1800's) it was Darby's strong assertion that Israel would be reformed as a nation-state and that liberalism and moral relativism would abound in the near future.  Mainstream interpreters of his day mocked both of these assertions, believing rather that Israel was a reality only in the past and that a trend toward the moral perfection of the secular realm would be the result of the ongoing presence of the church.  One can't help but notice that Darby was right about both of these predictions based on his view. 

Within Premillennialism, there is an expectation of a rapture. Again, with a commitment to read as literally as possible, one cannot get around the promises in 1 Thess 4:16-18; 1 Cor 15:51-53; and Matt 24:30-31 that at some point, those alive on the earth will be caught up to meet Christ in the clouds and will be transformed into eternal bodies in the process.  Other views either allegorize this or expect that it is just another way of representing the final resurrection and judgment.  Some Premillennial traditions expect this to happen before the outpouring of God's wrath, citing Revelation 3:10 and precedent judgment events like the Ark and Lot as reasons to expect that the church will not suffer the wrath of God.  This nuanced view is called "Pretribulational Premillennialism."  There is a spectrum of other views about the timing of the rapture, from a mid-wrath view to a post-tribulation rapture simultaneous with or just before the second coming of Christ at the dawn of the Millennial Kingdom. 

For all of these views, the heat between Christians on them has waned in recent days.  When Darby first argued for a dispensational lens and a pretribulation rapture, he was laughed off, and those who followed him were marginalized by the mainstream denominations.  After the restoration of Israel in 1948, the tide of public opinion swung rapidly in his favor. Both moments generated division and infighting.  Today, while different traditions hold different views on this question, the hostility between groups on these ideas seems to have lessened.  Many Christians today hold a "we'll see" perspective, confident that Christ will return at some time and fully cognizant that their opinion on the matter will not change what Christ ultimately does. 

Conclusion

Despite the numerous distinctions mentioned above, Christ prayed for unity among His followers. If we are Christ's followers, then, we must admit that it was His will that His One Church be preserved against the assaults of Hell. We must also affirm that the will of Christ is immutable.  We therefore believe that, despite appearances, there really is only One Holy Church of Jesus Christ. Which one is it, then? 

The formulation of that question betrays a pompous perspective as its foundation.  It is wrong to look at the diversity of thought and the various divisions within all Creedal, Protestant movements discussed above and ask which one preserves the One Church at the exclusion of all others.  Rather, it is much more fruitful to see all of these differences as diversity that would be present within any family.  No earthly family is perfectly homogenous. Individuals differ in small and large ways, but there is some defining attribute that binds them together as identifiable within that family.  

For this article, acceptance of the historic creeds serves as this family inheritance. Christ's church is trinitarian.  It accepts the work of Christ on the cross and His resurrection as the one door into everlasting life.  It acknowledges two sacraments that celebrate his work and our regeneration. It places absolute trust and confidence in His Word as recorded in the canon of Holy Scripture. It strives (although admittedly imperfectly) to love as He loved and to live as He lived. It submits to the officers of His Church, rightly ordained, and to political powers, and yet it holds all earthly administrations accountable to His Word as supreme over all.  It looks for His return and longs to improve the lives of our fellow man while we linger in this life. It does all of this filled by His Holy Spirit, indwelling and gifting all of us according to His Will. 

Within this family unity there is certainly room for diversity of thought and even some disagreement, but within the unity provided by ascent to the creeds, may we, His Church, deal with our differences differently and demonstrate how to love those with whom we disagree, even if that disagreement takes us to the place where we cannot functionally operate in the same movement.  If we are to share eternity together, may we be inspired to get along as best we can in this life as well!

For a discussion of the major denominations in the modern age and how they filter out along the distinctions we've discussed here, read part 2 in this series.