Great Chart on Denonminations

Very cool, thanks Michael (and Jeff)!

I love charts and I know that charts like this require some oversimplification but I have a couple of quarrels:

1. You would think that all Anglicans became Puritans or Methodists when many became Episcopalian.

2. You would think all Puritans became Baptists.

3. This seems limited to the US, right?

4. Don’t Amish fall under Anabaptists too?

5. I thought congregationalism was a Puritan thing instead of a Reformed thing. But I’m not sure on that one.

efca (evangelical free church of america) is not Lutheran in any way shape or form in practice, although it is true it came out of scandanavian lutheran background, it was a rejection of that church that led to many of its beliefs and practice

I almost posted the same about the EFCA. It’s closer to a conservative Baptist ethos, though they’re careful not to “major on the minors,” with the very intentional goal of maintaining a big tent. The biggest deviation from a typical conservative baptist theological viewpoint is that EFCA has a few (very few) churches that practice infant baptism.

They are also very pointedly congregational in polity.

I think the point of the chart is partially to navigate how these denominations came about. All of the “Free” Lutheran Churches (the BGC, EFCA, and ECC) were founded by Swedish Pietists. Pietism was a movement within the Swedish Lutheran Church which as you point out rejected some of the practices and doctrine of that church. Regardless these Pietist denominations arose out of the Lutheran strain of the Reformation in the same way that Methodism arose out of the Anglicanism even though they too rejected much of the practices and doctrines of Anglicanism.

In relation to this and the megachurch charts, it would be interesting to see one on various networks (Willow Creek, Northpoint, Acts 29, Redeemer, etc…).

[…] Great Chart on Denonminations | Parchment and Pen. […]

While the EFCA and the CCA are pietist in background, so is the baptist general conf, some of the brethern offshoots, as well as North American Baptist conf.

to me, talking them on after Lutheran makes them seem as if theologically they are offshoots (as in similar to) when in fact they are very different. A modern reformation, if you like

I think they belong under the modern leg, where the pietist group already is.

I think pietism deserves its own branch – it is significant enough, and has a number of branches (see above)

in all honesty CMP, your very much in the pietist mold. (and that’s a compliment)

It’s interesting that you use “Holiness” to describe Pentecostalism (1st, 2nd & 3rd Wave). I’d suggest that while they tend to come from a holiness background these movements do not all understand themselves as Holiness movements. I disagree with your usage of “Holiness” instead of “Pentecostal”, especially since the First Wave, Second Wave, and Third Wave are consistently used to describe Pentecostal or Charismatic movements. This way you can avoid the odd “Modern” categories. Speaking of modern, while this is a good attempt at linking current movements with their historical forebearers it leaves out the cross-polination evident especially in charismatic renewal movements within agreed upon denominations/movements/fellowships such as the Catholic Church, etc. Also, I highly doubt whether your inclusion of the Assemblies of God under the Methodist Episcopal format makes sense at all, considering that the polity of the AG is not episcopal in structure (whereas COGIC is). Again, another example of cross-polination.

Actually, I agree with Holiness “waves.” Many of these denominations were actually holiness well before they were ever pentecostal. I.e. the Church of God Cleveland, TN, which I’m a part of.

Your use of the term “Anglican” significantly differs from common usage in UK, where it exclusively means Church of England and all those in Communion with Church of England, which in US I guess that means ECUSA. http://anglicansonline.org/communion/index.html
“In order to have an Anglican church in valid apostolic succession, one needs to have one bishop whose consecration is through an Anglican origin”.
I doubt whether there is a Baptist or Pentecostal in existence who would consider themselves “Anglican”.