Jmj Yesterday, I said that I would come back to respond to Dave Bowerman's main thesis, because (as I stated), "He is wrong". His first sentence on this thread was: "Let's try to put Barrett's numbers to rest once and for all in this forum, if we can." I am going to do that now. I will show that his second sentence on this thread was inaccurate and unjust: "Barrett's numbers have been quoted, misquoted, and much maligned by the same individuals on this forum in the past depending on whether or not it served their purpose."

First, I want to restate Dave B's arguments. They go something like this:

1. For a long time, Catholic apologists (here at the forum and elsewhere), especially to show the unworkable quality of the Protestant theory of "sola scriptura," have been referring to the existence of an alleged 20,000 to 30,000+ Protestant separate denominations.

2. Some of these apologists have said that their number of denominations comes from the "World Christian Encyclopedia" (D. A. Barrett, editor), published by Oxford University Press.

3. There are two Internet essays, by Eric Svendsen, that show how the claimed number of Protestant denominations (20,000 to 30,000+) is greatly overstated. Allegedly, the Barrett book says that there are "only" 21 "major 'traditions'" in Protestantism, with "only" about 8,200 total denominations. While there may be more than 20,000 Christian denominations (Barrett allegedly says), more than half of these are not Protestant.

4. Svendsen alleges that the Barrett book assigns 223 denominations to Roman [sic] Catholicism.

5. Therefore (says Dave B): ----- We Catholics need to stop referring to 20,000 to 30,000+ Protestant denominations, and ... ----- We Catholics need to "own up" to our 223 Catholic denominations and stop pretending to be unified. ----- "You can't have it both ways [sez Dave]. Either you accept Barrett's numbers or reject them. And if you accept them, then at least state them accurately and with proper qualification. Thus far, you've only managed to demonstrate your own bias and lack of intellectual honesty."

Now I will analyze each of the above points of the thesis. I am confident that we will see that the "bias and lack of intellectual honesty" reside in Dave B and his source, Eric Svendsen, rather than in Catholic apologists. (If not guilty of "bias and lack of intellectual honest," then Dave and Eric have a serious lack of knowledge and don't read carefully enough.)

POINT 1. [For a long time, Catholic apologists (here at the forum and elsewhere), especially to show the unworkable quality of the Protestant theory of "sola scriptura," have been referring to the existence of an alleged 20,000 to 30,000+ Protestant separate denominations.] RESPONSE: This is correct (probably the only thing in the thesis that is correct and complete!).

POINT 2. [Some of these apologists have said that their number of denominations comes from the "World Christian Encyclopedia" (D. A. Barrett, editor), published by Oxford University Press.]

RESPONSE: This is correct, but incomplete. The escalating numbers, I have read, come from various editions of the Barrett book. The low number (20,000+) probably comes from the first edition, which apparently was published in 1982. I recall reading, a couple of years ago, that a new edition was about to be published -- with a number greater than 30,000. Moreover, it was said, more than one new denomination was coming into existence every week. Although I have not seen the publication, I have also read that these kinds of very high numbers of Protestant denominations are also given in "United Nations Information Center Statistics."

POINT 3. [There are two Internet essays, by Eric Svendsen, that show how the claimed number of Protestant denominations (20,000 to 30,000+) is greatly overstated. Allegedly, the Barrett book says that there are "only" 21 "major 'traditions'" in Protestantism, with "only" about 8,200 total denominations. While there may be more than 20,000 Christian denominations (Barrett allegedly says), more than half of these are not Protestant.]

RESPONSE: Eric Svendsen is not someone to whom I would turn for unbiased information. He is an anti-Catholic "Evengelical" Protestant -- in fact, a fallen-away Catholic, just like Dave B. Here comes the interesting part, showing that it is acceptable to refer to over 20,000 Protestant denominations. To do this, I need to quote from Svendsen's recounting of the numbers in the Barrett book. The sum of his subdivided counts of denominations is 22,189, indicating that Svendsen was working with an early (possibly even the original 1982) edition of Barrett -- not a very good show, for starters.

Here is how Barrett (says Svendsen) breaks down the 22,189 denominations into "seven major ecclesiastical 'blocs'": (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults ... which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.

I'll save Blocs 1 and 7 for my response to "point 4," below.

Bloc 2 accounts for the 8,196 Protestant denominations mentioned (reluctantly) by Dave B.

Bloc 3 is labeled "Orthodox". However, the number of alleged denominations, 580, makes no sense. In the first place, one person can argue that there is no denominationalism within Eastern Orthodoxy, which has genuine local "churches" headed by actual successors of the Apostles. Another person can argue that Eastern Orthodoxy represents one and only one "denomination," since a unified group of local churches broke away from Catholicism. At most, a person can argue that Orthodoxy has about twenty "denominations," each being an autonomous national patriarchate. But any way you look at it, there are not 580 denominations within true Easern Orthodoxy. Therefore, Barrett (a Protestant himself) is misunderstanding what Orthodoxy is. I believe that at least 500 of the 580 listed in Group 3 are actually Protestant denominations that merely happen to have the word "Orthodox" in their titles.

Bloc 4 -- "Non-White Indigenous" -- is actually a massive group of almost 11,000 Protestant denominations, completely overlooked by Dave B!!! For some strange reason, editor Barrett listed these separately from Group 2. His book is about Christianity alone. Since these 10,956 denominations are not part of Catholicism nor part of Orthodoxy, they must be part of Protestantism. There is no fourth "wing" of Christianity (despite the vehemence with which some folks try to argue for the existence of something called "non-denominational" bodies).

Bloc 5 is labeled "Anglican," which has 240 denominations. Again, this is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but Protestant, so it should have been included in Group 2. The Church [sic] of England even calls itself "Protestant" in the royal oath.

Bloc 6 is labeled "Marginal Protestant," which has 1,490 denominations. Without being able to see the names of all the "groups" and "cults" included, it is not possible to know how many of these are truly Protestant. [Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not.] Rather than accept them all, I will accept just half -- i.e., 745.

POINT 4. [Svendsen alleges that the Barrett book assigns 223 denominations to Roman [sic] Catholicism.]

RESPONSE: While we're add it, lets make the number 727, by adding in the alleged "504 denominations" listed as "Catholic (Non-Roman)" in group 7. However, Melissa and John P have done a splendid job of explaining that Catholicism is not a denomination, that Catholicism is not subdivided into denominations, and that many schismatic and Protestant denominations illegitimately use the word "Catholic" in their title. This is exactly analogous to the misuse of "Orthodox" in the titles of 500 or more Protestant denominations [see response about Bloc 3, above]. If we allow Barrett (inaccurately) to call genuine Catholicism "1 denomination," that tells us that the remaining 726 so-called groups that label themselves "catholic" are actually schismatic or heretical (i.e., Protestant). I will estimate that half (363) are actually Protestant.

POINT 5. [Therefore (sez Dave B): ----- a We Catholics need to stop referring to 20,000 to 30,000+ Protestant denominations, and ... ----- b. We Catholics need to "own up" to our 223 Catholic denominations. ----- c. "You can't have it both ways [sez Dave]. Either you accept Barrett's numbers or reject them. And if you accept them, then at least state them accurately and with proper qualification. Thus far, you've only managed to demonstrate your own bias and lack of intellectual honesty."]

RESPONSE: a. Using the information given in the response to Points 3 and 4, we can compute ... Total Protestant denominations = 21,000 ... (8,196 from Bloc 2 + estimated 500 from Bloc 3 + 10,956 from Bloc 4 + 240 from Bloc 5 + 745 from Bloc 6 + estimated 363 from Blocs 1 and 7). The number, therefore, is over 20,000 even when using an early edition of Barrett -- and possibly 30,000 according to the latest edition. Thus, Point 5.a. is refuted. b. Using the information given in the resonse to Point 4, we know that there is not even one denomination -- much less 223 or 726 denominations -- in Catholicism. Thus, Point 5.b is refuted. c. We "accept [those of] Barrett's numbers" that are reasonable and accurate. We "reject" those that are inaccurate. We do (and always have) "state[d] them accurately." We have now "managed to demonstrate" our objectivity and "intellectual honesty."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004

Answers

this is a post by J Gecik from this thread: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Ak7Q

it is very comprehensive as it also puts forward the arguments that it addresses that suggest that there are fewer tan 20 - 30 thousand protestant denominations.

its a hard one to follow.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.

btw, Emily, and maybe a subject for another thread, but when you say "Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong....." i almost cringed.

is he a deacon, priest, monsignor, bishop, archbishop, Pope or Cardinal?

if NOT, then,......., (A) why not, and (B) why do we care for his opinions?!?!?!

just a point of view - but maybe worth debating when/if we tire of other subjects. we'll see!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.

"....Cardinal or Pope..."

and apologies to all substantive titular omissions.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.

I am not sure that clerical status should determine whether we listen to someone's opinion. After all, many competent laypeople teach in seminaries. There are also some clerical wackos. A layperson can establish a ministry and not be under the direct jurisdiction of a bishop, which could raise some concern.

Personally, I think Dave Armstrong is quite competent in the field of apologetics.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 04, 2004.

Hi Ian, I'm sort of at a loss as to why you would cringe at the term "apologist." If you are a Catholic, you are called to be an "apologist," that is, to be ready, willing and able to defend your faith, should you be asked to do so.

Dave Amstrong is a very good Catholic apologist, along with many others. There are also some very good Catholic apologists that float around these quarters as well, John Gecik, Paul M, quickly come to mind, along with many others.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 04, 2004.

OK

i did say that it was "just a point of view" so maybe you can start by pointing out where the Church has taught that lay people can make a living from apologetics when most of the ordained and religious do the opposite.

that's a start, i suppose.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.

PS Paul M is a deacon

PPS JFG does not earn a living (i stand to be corrected) from apologetics. he does it [expertly] for a love of God.

PPPS you MUST understand my point - unappointed "pastors", flitting in and out with their own agendas. we have the Church. we have our priests etc. you must at least be able to understand the point i am making -- preliminarily at this juncture.

PPPPS you might dreg through the Church Fathers and shew me that certain of them were "lay people making their living from Apologetics"; but i doubt very much that you could ever do that. and i make that point from a position of weakness because it is a mere hunch.

PPPPPS we can start a thread if you like.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.

Thanks, Ian. Since you brought this into question, and others have raised opposing views, I looked into the original source on this, and I encourage you to do so also. Hopefully you can find it at a local library or university library.

David Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia

There are two editions:
1982
2001

It does not appear that John looked into the original sources since he did a lot of estimating, so I don't think we should put too much weight on his opinion. However, upon examining the summary in the 2001 edition, I noticed that Mr. Gecik is correct on at least some accounts. Anglicans are not included in the Protestant count, and the Non-White Indigenous category appears to have been changed to the name "Independent." Under this category are many denominations whose names appear to make them arguably Protestant.

Additionally, the categories "Catholic-Roman" are stated specifically by the author to include only those in communion with the Pope. Thus, Barrett included all of the Eastern rites under this category, and those are listed in his table. The category "Catholic- NonRoman" includes all schismatic groups that have broken away from communion with Rome, again according to Barrett. (This I found in the 2001 edition's glossary of terms under the entries near "Catholic".) This means that Gecik underestimated his calculations for that section, and the Protestant number should be higher.

Therefore, it is ludicrous to say, based on reading Barrett's book, that there are all these divisions among Catholics into various denominations, when those included in the category (Catholic-Roman) are stated specifically as being in communion with the Pope! This means it's all one "denomination" (for lack of a better term). Barrett should have counted Catholic-Roman as 1 entity. Thus, I am not sure how well we can trust his numbers anyway, due to the errors we see even within Catholicism.

I hope to comment more later after looking over the denominational lists some more.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.

tread carefully Emily.

JFG is a pretty impeccable source, as i'm sure you know. second to none, really.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 06, 2004.