The Problem of the Basis for the Protestant Communities Classification

Introduction. The classification of Protestant communities is associated with a number of problems caused by the absence of a unified Protestant dogma, a unified worship practice and, as a consequence, the ambivalence of terminology. In identifying a subset of liturgical Protestants, researchers use different criteria of liturgicality as a basis, sometimes using several division bases, which hinders the clarity of classification. The purpose of this study was to select a single basis for identifying a subset of liturgical Protestants. The hypothesis of this study was that the formalized or non-formalized type of worship is not the core of the concept of “liturgicality”. Content. Depending on the conceptual sphere of a particular researcher, the concept of “liturgicality” can correlate with the degree of formalization of liturgical life (rigidity of ritual discourse), the presence and understanding of sacraments, numinosity (the peculiarity of the reflection of “sacred terror” and “sacred delight” in the religious experience of Protestants), fascinativity, as well as with religious art as one of the ways to enhance fascinativity. The word “liturgy” in the Christian context can refer to both the Eucharistic service and the worship system as a whole. The key to understanding liturgicality is the antithesis “common-individual”. It is sometimes thought that the further from Reformation, the less liturgical Protestants become. However, both vectors of development, liturgical and non-liturgical, were outlined in the 16th century almost simultaneously. The reason for the ritual minimalism of a number of Protestant communities is their commitment to the regulative principle. The ritual minimalism is not identical to the ritual individualism that emerged later; these are two independent varieties of non-liturgicality. Particular attention is paid to the consideration of the liturgical practices of Methodists, whom some classifiers identify as non-liturgical Protestants for the sole reason that they do not belong to the churches of the Reformation. Conclusions. The core of the concept of “liturgicality” is not the formal (formalized) type of worship in itself, but the succession with one of the historically established liturgical systems. It is proposed to divide non-liturgical Protestants into two groups: supporters of ritual minimalism and supporters of ritual individualism. The question of identifying particular Protestant communities as liturgical or non-liturgical can only be resolved after a thorough study of their liturgical practice, which is the task of further research.