What is the main difference between all the denominations? Methodist, Baptist, Protestant? Adventist? United Reformed? Pentecostal? Episcopal? Free church? Lutheran? Presbyterian? For one God, there are so many different churches.
Thanks FedUp. A book could be written on the differences. Heck, a book could be written on the differences within Baptist groups. The one thing though is that you have "prodestant" listed there. All of those groups are considered prodestant.
Well, I'm a Unitarian Universalist. We're the weird ones. I'm one of six in my congregation that actually believes in the divinity of Jesus the Nazarene. I also believe that the 2nd coming of Christ is a personal spiritual ascension similar to "being saved." My biological parents are Southern Baptists. They hate gay people and abortions. My paternal grandparents are Catholic. They believe in lots of structure and esoteric church-knowledge. My maternal grandparents are Methodist. They have spaghetti suppers and do commercials on TV. My aunt goes to the American Methodist Episcopal Church. She's big into dancing and "feelin' the spirit." I have a Taoist uncle, a Buddhist uncle, an Atheist roommate, a Pagan wife, and a Wiccan cousin. None of them really play the Jesus game. Hope that helped and made you laugh.
My girlfriend took that of me ouside her grandparents place. They were taking us on a trip when we drove across 2 provinces to see them. I have a purse, video camera, 2 swimsuits, two towels and other assorted goodies... I think the main difference, to get back to the OP, is that episcopal (anglican in the rest of the world), lutheran and presbyterian churches are based around a church heirarchy (priests, bishops, etc. they vary between groups and their specific functions vary as well) if i am not mistaken. Anybody want to correct me? That is where the names episcopal and presbyterian come from, from the greek for bishops and elders respectfully...
Haha thanks, I did have a chuckle! Sounds like you have an interesting family! I'm Anglican so I know that part of Christianity.
Okay, well I have some knowledge from my Psychoanalysis of Hinduism course; basically, you can divide religious institutions into two categories: esoteric and exoteric. The more esoteric denominations are typically frequented by more well-to-do individuals and are marked by a lot of structure, use of ancient language in ritual, highly formalized ritual structure, and overall orthopraxy (correct practice). In Hinduism, we have Vedic ritual being led by Brahamin priests which is the best example of this. In the "Western" world, we have the Catholics who are the prime example, as evidenced by their reinstating of Latin in parts of ritual during times of low membership in order to increase their power over constituents. On the other hand, we have more exoteric denominations, the Bhakti yogis in Hinduism and the Protestants in Christianity. Decentralized, highly personal, evangelical, typically less well-to-do people and ritual structure. If you divide up denominations into those two categories, you can see different groups emerging over various lines (social, economic, political, etc). It's kind of a universal thing so I imagine you can move it around to any other religion with different sects as well. Remember, if you take the course I'm in, power systems define everything and religion is an expression of power over not power with.
The anglican (protestant) church is hardly non-heirarchical. Since the queen of england, along with most of the british establishment is nominally at least anglican, it's hard to equate this with the less well to do. On the other hand, many imigrants to the uk who are very poor, such as Poles and other eastern europeans are almost all catholic or orthodox. It would seem that many american evangelical and baptist churches aren't exactly short of cash.(pity one can't say the same about intelligence!) Bhakti Yogis too are almost universally under this or that guru. ISKCON for example is very authoritarian and centralized in it's structure.
The Pope hasn't reinstated Latin because of low membership. If anything, the latin would work to push more people away. He reinstated Latin at the priets (and therefore in theory, the congregations) discression because he is a conservative. and then basically I agree with BlackBillBlake...
Okay, I would put the Anglicans with the Catholics. And regardless of church cash flow and mega or parachurch examples, I think if you look at the economic spread in America, non-evangelical protestant churches tend to attract more lower class people and Catholic or Anglican or Episcopal churches for that matter tend to attract more upper class people. Catholic and Protestant probably aren't the best dividing lines because I can see where you're coming from: what about evangelical versus non-evangelical? I think most Bhaktis are generally poorer though. ISKCON, while authoritarian, does have thousands of practically homeless lay people doing all it's evangelical work. I travelled with some Hare Krishnas for a while and the generally idea seemed to be expressing your personal connection with Krishna and how you grow in attaining consciousness as opposed to following say the Bhagavad Gita. Nevertheless, that's personal experience and not based on anything scholarly I've read.
If the whole idea is power, then I think Latin ritual is a form of esoteric knowledge and could then be seen as a form of power over normal church-goers because its knowledge they don't have.
Yeah but it's also a get out of jail free card so to speak for people without power. Monasticism guarentees social security due to religious privilege. Unless you believe in true spiritual devotion, there's no reason for a rich person to give up everything for an ascetic lifestyle.
I think your "prime example" of esoteric religion is flawed. Vedic ritual is all about correct ritual and practice as you have said, but according to wikipedia (i know the stigma), it is the exoteric religions that focus on ritual and laws: The term exoteric is mostly used in conjunction with religions, such as Judaism, in which the teachings shift the believer's focus away from the exploration of the inner self and towards the adherence to rules and laws. Another site explains exoteric philosophy as: philosophy or religion as one which is based on the normal waking state of consciousness, or a modified state of consciousness which is still pretty close to the normal waking state. http://www.kheper.net/topics/esoteric_and_exoteric.htm . I think that bhatki yogas, and charismatic Christians fail to fall into this caergory as well. although there are some aspects to the philosphies that do not connect (such as that esoteric religions tend to have a more "God is in/is everything" outlook to put it in lay terms while Christianities it is safe to say generally don't fall ito this catrgory). Whern this is done Jews, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians have above overage socioeconomic achievements: Methodists and Catholics are new the mean: and Baptists are below the average. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1970.tb01005.x?cookieSet=1 http://www.jstor.org/view/00031224/di974308/97p0223u/0 Just read the Astract. Basically says the idea that socioeconomic staus can attempt to predict religious affiliation is bunk.
The HK folks I know are far from poor - they're typical middle class wealthy people. And having mentioned class - it does seem that HK attracts mainly middle class people. Of course, that's in the uk, not India.
I venture it is the same for the US as well. I might pop down to the local tempple to find out about the city here. It seems from what i've read is that the main driving force for people to ISKCON was disatisfaction with the counter-culture of the 60's and 70's. Mind you, it is no longer then so it would be interesting to do socioreligious studies now. Also, a lot of the people seemed to crave some sort of authority over themselves.
Although we're going off topic a bit here perhaps, I'll just mention that these days I know some HK people who are in their mid-late 20's and are the children of folks who took to it back in the late 60's and 70's. Second generation. They seem to have a mixed attitude - on some things there very dogmatic, but also they tend to ignore the rules , esp those restricting sex and drug use. Bit like many Christians in that sense.
