Denominations

There was a time, not so long ago, when if asked the question, What is your religion? people would respond by giving the name of their denomination. This assumed a society in which most of the population was associated with the Christian faith in some way and in which a person’s identity was somehow connected to his or her denominational affiliation. At the time denominations were still a major force on the religious scene, and there was a fairly clear sense of what differentiated them from one another. All this is now changing.

What Are Denominations and Denominationalism?

A denomination is a legally constituted association of local churches that agree to work together according to a common polity for their mutual benefit. There is considerable variety within denominations concerning forms of leadership, the relative strength of the central body or member congregations and the degree of flexibility in belief and practice. A denomination differs from a national or state church, which is the public religious expression of a specific country, and from a looser affiliation of churches who have only fraternal bonds but no formal structure.

The word denominationalism is sometimes used to describe the whole phenomenon of a church divided into separate denominations in distinction from other forms of wider church associations in the past. There was a time when Christianity was largely made up of two large ecclesiastical movements, the Catholic and the Orthodox, and, after the Reformation, primarily of national churches following particular theological traditions. We could call this the pre-denominational period of the church. The period of church history from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries, first in the West and then in the Two-Thirds World, can be properly described as the age of the denominations. I will suggest below that we are now moving into a time that could be rightly called post-denominational.

Denominationalism sometimes has another more evaluative and generally negative connotation. When used this way, it refers to the tendency to become so preoccupied with denominational distinctions that a narrow or judgmental attitude develops toward denominations other than one’s own or toward nondenominational forms of Christianity in general. In this sense it is just another form of sectarianism. What follows mostly has the first sense of the word in view but at points also takes the second into account.

The Origin of the Major Denominations

Denominations began for variety of reasons. While it is often thought that particular theological convictions were uppermost, this was only sometimes the case or only part of the motivation.

On the edges of the Reformation, the Anabaptist movement gave birth to several networks of churches across political boundaries. Among the earliest of these were the Mennonites and the Moravians, denominations founded on certain ecclesial convictions about the voluntary and communal nature of the church, ethical convictions concerning simplicity and pacifism and missionary convictions about preaching the gospel inside and outside their own countries. In the following century the Quakers differentiated themselves by emphasizing the inner presence of the Spirit in each individual and a more participatory form of worship and decision-making, while the Congregationalists insisted on the God-given responsibility of each congregation to determine its own affairs. In America, especially after the Declaration of Independence, some denominations began for quite different reasons. For example, offshoots of established churches, such as the Anglican, could no longer function as a state church and so were forced to operate in a denominational way. Later this also happened to the Lutherans.

In the eighteenth century, influenced by contact with the Moravians, Methodists—as they came to be called—developed a set of spiritual and communal disciplines for their members and instituted meetings with a high degree of accountability, while remaining, in most other respects, Anglican in doctrine. Throughout the nineteenth century, especially in America, many new Christian movements arose, such as the Disciples of Christ, which began as a renewal movement for the whole church but developed into denominations. Older ecclesiastical traditions developed parallel denominations among different immigrant or racial groups. Some newer and older denominations split into separate groups as a result of social and political differences, as during the Civil War, or because of minor or major theological and ecclesiastical differences.

Today there are several hundred denominations in the United States, many of them particular versions of a more generic denominational tradition. These are often broadly categorized as mainline, confessional and evangelical, alongside other nondenominational networks or congregations. Denominationalism has taken deepest root in America in the fertile soil of its emphasis on individual decision and opposition to governmental influence in religion, which is characteristic of revivals and awakenings. Interestingly, this denominationalism often goes hand in hand with strong interdenominational interests expressed in parachurch associations. The voluntary decision of the individual lies at the heart of this, along with a tendency toward cooperation fostered by the challenges of developing a new nation under difficult circumstances. On the other hand, the strong ecumenical interest sometimes displayed by mainline denominations goes hand in hand with an intolerant—actually sectarian or denominationalist in the negative sense—attitude toward more conservative or nondenominational Christian groups.

A Theological Basis for and Critique of Denominations

Some have argued, on both the theological right and the theological left, that denominations have no biblical basis. The first believe in the absolute autonomy and independence of the congregation, the second in the sinfulness of all separate groupings of Christians and in the ideal of one universal church. There are others who argue, or at least act as if, denominations are sacrosanct. Some of these believe that not only diverse but even contradictory ecclesiastical stances have a divine right to exist. Others believe that no matter what denominations do or fail to do, it is our duty to remain loyal to them.

A biblical approach would recognize the relative autonomy granted by apostles like Paul to each congregation and yet the importance of their being part of at least a loose network of congregations from whom they could learn, to whom they could occasionally give aid and with whom members could have fellowship. Such an approach would also recognize the value of developing links with some evangelistic, church-planting and missionary work, both to give support and to gain wisdom. It also provides precedent, as at Corinth, for Christians whose churches in the one city stemmed from different founders to come together every so often to fellowship with God and one another.

We do not find here local churches under some kind of official hierarchy to which they must submit. Nor did the apostles encourage congregations to separate from one another on the ground of particular doctrinal practices. So long as they did not cut across fundamental gospel convictions and behavior in accordance with those, there could be different attitudes in belief and practice within one community. So we cannot derive from early Christian practice either a centralized denominationalism or a radical congregationalism. Neither can we find a strict conformity in belief among all members of a congregation, nor a tolerance of convictions between congregations on issues fundamental to the gospel. The figure of James in Jerusalem apart, key figures in the early Christian movement do not appear in a hierarchical position above the churches in their constituencies but in a respected position as leaders of teams focusing on outreach alongside them. The picture we have is of a partnership between such teams and local churches, between key figures and local leaders, somewhat akin to the cordial, interdependent relationships that some congregations have established with parachurch organizations. Denominations are generally a fusion of these two entities in which, depending on whether organizational links are tight or loose, there is a subservience on the part of one or the other rather than a mutual giving and taking.

Though we are not bound to reproduce this early Christian approach, which itself contained certain variations, we should seek to honor the basic principles that it enshrined. For here we have a complex but practical working out of the freedoms and limits, relationship and responsibilities, unity and diversity, of local churches and wider groupings of such churches. Both history and experience confirm that no church can live or die to itself and that there are certain advantages in cooperating with other groups to pursue some common ends. On the other hand, no church can realize its potential unless it possesses sufficient freedom to make basic decisions about its common life and experiment with a wide range of possibilities. The way this works out today should take note of the different cultural circumstances under which we operate, while being careful to avoid simply mirroring the kinds of structures typical of our age, such as the corporation or the bureaucracy.

The Vocational Responsibilities and Limits of Denominations

What is the particular vocation or calling of denominational bodies? It is essentially to serve their constituencies, not lord over them, to enhance their life in ways they cannot do themselves, whether as individual congregations or as clusters of congregations. What local churches, on their own or in smaller groupings, can or ought do themselves, denominational bodies should let alone. Such bodies should always be seeking to enhance the growth of such churches to maturity, not expand their own influence at the expense of local churches. What local churches most appreciate is educational resources in certain areas, pastoral support for key people involved in ministry to the body and actual pioneering of new models of evangelism and mission. From the key figures in their denominational network, people look for practicing role models rather than public declarations and administrative initiatives. Too often denominational agencies and leaders are caught up in predominantly administrative matters and are in any case too removed from the grassroots to have any powerful influence. Less bureaucratic and more decentralized structures would make a big difference here.

With respect to the interface between church and world, the main role of denominations is not to build up an institutional apparatus with which to confront the world or to penetrate it. A lot of energy and money presently goes into this, often in ways that the ordinary churchgoer finds difficult to identify with. Largely overlooked in all this is the fact that denominations already have a presence and contribution in almost every sphere of society through the daily work and life of ordinary church members. What denominational agencies would be far better doing is encouraging and assisting those members to be fully equipped for their various ministries of daily life and providing ways of networking them to do this. This would be far less costly and far more effective than what is mostly attempted at present.

Denominations also ought to cooperate more with one another in certain areas. For all the rhetoric about ecumenical relationships, it is rare to find denominations giving up their own vested interests to collaborate with others. Take current attitudes toward the mass media, especially television. What we find so often is a range of small, underfinanced, often semiprofessional, programs representing different denominational hobbyhorses or trendy concerns rather than a creative, joint approach bringing Christian convictions to bear on an increasingly unchurched culture. The same is also true to some extent in the field of publications, though here economic forces are beginning to work toward less duplication and greater cooperation.

Toward a Postdenominational Christianity

Can denominations reform themselves in ways that will enable them to fulfill their basic responsibilities? It is very difficult for any institution to engage in radical self-criticism and acknowledge how often it operates in a secular rather than Christian way. It is also difficult for religious institutions to radically change themselves or to share their power or collaborate with others. There is always the temptation for them to become principalities and powers that disable and disempower their members, rather than genuinely “servant institutions” that seek to resource and enhance them. It is always difficult for them to look to the margins, where new and highly relevant things are often happening, and bring these into the mainstream; it is far easier to criticize such efforts or take defensive measures against them. In our day some businesses have shown themselves more capable of doing this than denominations, being more likely to express institutional repentance, redistribute power and take risks for the sake of the future. God’s response is sometimes to raise up new denominations to do the work, as was the case with eighteenth-century Methodism, or new informal affiliations of congregations, such as networks of Vineyard Fellowships, as is happening in various parts of the world today.

What we have been watching over the last few decades is the gradual withering of the denominations. Membership in denominational churches has been steadily declining, a pattern that shows little sign of abating. Denominational budgets are constantly being scaled back, and programs are being cut year after year. Many denominational seminaries have had to close or merge. Meanwhile newer churches and networks of churches are experiencing dramatic or steady growth. Alongside this, churchgoers are generally placing less emphasis on their denominational affiliation and are choosing churches on the basis of style of worship, quality of teaching and provision of services. The latest surveys even show the beginning of a trend toward multiple church connection, a kind of smorgasbord approach to church attendance. All this heralds the early phases of a new form of church connectedness and membership. One of the first to talk about the emergence of a postdenominational Christianity was the American writer and speaker Elton Trueblood. This is not to predict the end of denominations. Many older ones will continue, but they will be smaller, leaner and less influential. One or two may even go through a period of renewal, as Anglicanism did in England during the nineteenth century in response to Methodism, and experience a new burst of life. Some newer networks and affiliations may develop into full-scale denominations.

But many churches and people involved in ministry are finding that connections across denominational boundaries with others in similar settings and with similar goals are more meaningful. Interdenominational movements and seminaries have grown in significance. Nondenominational churches are growing and seem to appeal especially to the younger generation. All this suggests that denominationalism, though by no means to be written off as a spent force, is definitely on the wane. For the many who still have hope for their denominations and sense the call of God to remain with them and work for change, the task is to become a critical, loyal opposition, one that both is supportive and holds them accountable.

» See also: Church

» See also: Nondenominational

» See also: Parachurch Organizations

References and Resources

R. Banks, “Denominational Structures,” in In the Fulness of Time: Biblical Studies in Honour of Archbishop Donald Robinson, ed. David Peterson and John Pryor (Sydney: Lancer, 1992) 277-300; J. Dillenberger, Protestant Christianity: Interpreted Through Its Development (New York: Scribner, 1954); E. Jacoby, The Bureaucratization of the World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976); D. B. Knox, “The Church and the Denominations,” Reformed Theological Review 23, no. 2 (1964); 44-53; H. R. Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (New York: World, 1957).

—Robert Banks