Church Differences
- Thread starter JML
- Start date
- Status
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Not much.
All these denominations are evangelical and Reformed and subscribe to the WCF: Free Presbyterian CofS, Free Church CofS, Associated Presbyterian Churches, Free Church (Continuing), Reformed Presbyterian Church.
There may be a slight difference in emphasis. E.g. The Free Presbyterian church came out of the Free Church in 1893, while the FCC split with the FC in 2000 not because they agreed with the FPC, but because they disagreed with what was happening in the FC.
All these denominations are evangelical and Reformed and subscribe to the WCF: Free Presbyterian CofS, Free Church CofS, Associated Presbyterian Churches, Free Church (Continuing), Reformed Presbyterian Church.
There may be a slight difference in emphasis. E.g. The Free Presbyterian church came out of the Free Church in 1893, while the FCC split with the FC in 2000 not because they agreed with the FPC, but because they disagreed with what was happening in the FC.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Since no one with any real knowledge has responded to you, I'll take a shot at it. I'm certainly open to correction, but my understanding is there is very little material difference between these micro denominations.
Edit: Cross posted with Mr. Tallach. The above is not intended as a commentary on his posting.
Edit: Cross posted with Mr. Tallach. The above is not intended as a commentary on his posting.
TexanRose
Puritan Board Sophomore
I thought the term micro-denomination was generally used for denominations with only a handful of congregations. Both the FCC and the FP church have over 50 congregations, so I'm not sure that they qualify.
Regarding the original question, yes, there are differences, but I'm not sure that I would be qualified to explain them, so I'll let someone else make the attempt.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I have asked that question and was told that the denominations are essentially the same, except that the above-mentioned split occurred over the way in which a FCoS minister was being disciplined (or not being disciplined as the case may be). That may not have been the only issue, but was perhaps the proverbial straw which broke the camel's back.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the recent controversial issue regarding the use of hymns in the FCoS would be a different (as in I do not believe the FCoS(C) would allow them). Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the recent controversial issue regarding the use of hymns in the FCoS would be a different (as in I do not believe the FCoS(C) would allow them). Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
The FCC were unhappy with how allegations against a Free Church College professor were handled.
The FCC isn't keen on the new version of the Psalms ("Sing Psalms"). I don't know if only the KJV is approved of. I don't know if Christmas is kept by FCC families. FCC ministers eschew theonomy but it is allowed for office bearers if they so wish.
The FPC tends to follow closed communion, apart from one or two denominational exceptions, only allows the KJV in the pulpit, tends to preach against Christmas, and women must wear hats.
In the FC there is open communion, the KJV, ESV, NKJV and NIV are used in different pulpits, there tends to be little preaching against Christmas, and women choose to wear hats or not.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got any of this wrong.
Differences have to be emphasised to help justify denominations.
Maybe some other - more important - differences can be thought of.
Most Free Church people wouldn't allow them in a service, either. But they have been allowed at home in the FC, FPC, FCC and APC. I've heard that some Reformed Presbyterian CofI folks believe it is always a sin to sing a hymn, but it is not an expression that I've heard in the Scottish denominations.
Maybe this permission to sing hymns can be traced to the presence of other songs in Scripture apart from the Psalms.
You've got to remember that the USA is 60x the population of Scotland (300 million vs 5 million) which helps to make our denominations look bigger.
If we weren't in a micro-denomination we'd be in an independent church or one of the mixed Presbyterian denominations, the United Free CofS, or the CofS. Also unthinkable would be the Scottish Episcopal Church or the RCC.
Last edited:
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
OK. I was going off of this: "The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) presently has 33 congregations in Scotland, 1 in each of Australia and Canada, and 3 in the United States." (Wikipedia) There are also two preaching stations in the United States, and a seminary and demonstration farm in Zambia." Which in my book would be a micro denomination. Count them yourself here Map , I came up with 33 in Scotland as well, 6 in North America, and 1 in Australia. Overseas (The one in Atlanta, at least, is shown as a preaching station, not an organized church. So the Wikipedia numbers look fairly accurate to me based upon the website of the congregation.
For the Free Presbyterians, I count 41 in the UK, 1 in Singapore, 6 Austr/NZ, 6 Africa, and 3 North Am., for a total of 57. after 100 years. So if 50 is the determining factor, then I was wrong to refer to them as a micro denomination.
Edit. From the website, the Free Presbyterian church in Vancouver doesn't appear to be viable. So make that 56.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Apparently the Free Church of Scotland has 100 congregations in Great Britain. I don't know what qualifies as a micro-denomination, but David got into trouble for counting the fighting strength of Israel, so we have to ask questions about how we go about this numbering business.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
But they aren't one of the subjects of the thread. The thread deals with the Free Church of Scotland Continuing, a fairly recent breakoff from the Free Church of Scotland, and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
The leaders of any micro denomination (or micro congregation) should regularly schedule sessions with a mirror in which they engage in a deep examination of whether they are the only folks getting it right, or whether they should just get low marks on their report card under the column for 'works well with others'. It could be that they ARE the only folks getting it right. But they shouldn't start with that assumption.
I would agree that size isn't an indication of quality - I can point you to some really horrible megachurches in Texas, and some solid small churches. But when one has trouble getting along with most other folks, perhaps the problem isn't with the other folks.
TexanRose
Puritan Board Sophomore
The FPC does not practice closed communion, but rather restricted communion.
holdfast: Open Communion
From a Synod resolution "...while this Church does not hold close communion, none are to be admitted to the privilege mentioned but such as are known as God-fearing persons by a majority of those who are responsible for admission."
As far as those who coined the term, handful is more in view; certainly as used for a number of years it did not mean 50.
I thought the term micro-denomination was generally used for denominations with only a handful of congregations. Both the FCC and the FP church have over 50 congregations, so I'm not sure that they qualify.
Regarding the original question, yes, there are differences, but I'm not sure that I would be qualified to explain them, so I'll let someone else make the attempt.
- Status
