Defending Denominations in a “Postdenominational Age”

Last updated on: November 9, 2015 at 9:24 am by Roger E. Olson

Defending Denominations in a “Postdenominational Age” 2015-11-09T09:24:43-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The “word on the street” is that we are living in a postdenominational age. Allegedly, denominations are “old school” and dying out. New forms of church life and cooperation are arising; independent, non-denominational churches are flourishing. Many churches are dropping their denominational identities; denominations are morphing into “networks.” People, so it is said, are shying away from churches with denominational labels in favor of churches that have no denominational identity.

This week (November 12-13, 2015) I will be keynote speaker at a conference about denominations. There is no doubt about the anxiety among denominational leaders, employees and pastors about this sociological trend. I will be defending denominations as valid, if not necessary, and suggesting ways in which denominations might adapt to the current seeming antipathy to denominations.

Sociologists of religion seem to claim the field when it comes to attempting to explain this trend. What’s largely missing is any theological reflection on denominations. However, two recent books attempt to fill that gap and I recommend them to anyone concerned about the subject: Why We Belong: Evangelical Unity and Denominational Diversity, eds., Anthony Chute, Christopher W. Morgan, Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013) and Denomination: Assessing an Ecclesiological Category, eds., Paul M. Collins and Barry Ensign-George (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2011). The first one is relatively inexpensive; the second is quite expensive but easily borrowed through any interlibrary loan program.

Why We Belong contains essay by theologians about a theology of denominations as well as essays by adherents of several denominations explaining their histories, distinctives and why they do not represent division among the people of God. (The authors do not deny that denominations can and sometimes do represent such division, but they argue that their existence does not in and of itself constitute a “broken Body of Christ.” The subtitle is “Evangelical Unity and Denominational Diversity.”)

Denomination is a more scholarly book written primarily for other scholars. Like Why We Belong it contains essays defending the existence of denominations theologically. Some of the essays focus on specific denominations and are written by theologians embedded in them. The “gist” of the book is that denominations can be gifts of God to the people of God—depending on how they function.

The essential message of both books is the same and I agree with it: Contrary to what many people think, the bare existence of denominations is not in and of itself sin and denominations actually can and often do contribute much good to the people of God and to the social world.

This message is contrary to that communicated to the world, especially America (because of its denominational diversity) by H. Richard Niebuhr in his 1929 classic The Social Sources of Denominationalism. Niebuhr decried the existence of denominations as sin and equated it with brokenness in the Body of Christ and called it a religious “caste system.” That was, of course, at or near the beginning of the modern “ecumenical movement” intended to unite all Christians, Protestants at first, into a united church with “visible and institutional unity.”

I doubt that Niebuhr’s book has any direct impact on the alleged decline of denominationalism during the past twenty-to-thirty years. Instead, I think it is the result of several religious and social factors in American society: rising individualism, populism, increasing suspicion of large institutions with hierarchies invisible to outsiders and the “grassroots,” and, perhaps surprisingly, the left-over effects of the Jesus People Movement and the Charismatic Movement—both of which flourished in the 1970s.

There are several ironies in this postdenominational attitude. First, most allegedly independent congregations have some denominational identity—even if it is hard to discover (mention of it is buried somewhere on its web site). That “identity” might not be membership in a denomination, but it is usually some degree of affiliation with a denomination (often under the currently favored moniker “network”).

Second, in this allegedly postdenominational age denominations are proliferating if not flourishing. As consultant to the Handbook of Denominations I keep my “ear to the ground,” so to speak, about new denominations. Many of them claim to not be denominations; they prefer to be called “ministries” or “networks” or something else. Sociologically, however, they are denominations. “Denomination” has never required having a headquarters with authority and power to dominate and control congregations. Many denominations have always been voluntary associations of autonomous congregations. There are more of these now than ever before and new ones are popping up all the time.

Third, finally, “mega-churches” are functioning much like denominations. People do not realize that when they join an “independent” and “non-denominational” mega-church with twenty thousand members they are, in effect, joining a functional denomination even if, because it is a single congregation, sociologists don’t call it a denomination. Soon, in many cases, the mega-church begins “mothering” or “planting” branches where the celebrity pastor appears on a big screen on Sunday mornings. In some of these quasi-denominations members and visitors cannot know in advance at which of the locations he or she will appear in person.

While I do not think denominations were ever God’s intention for the Body of Christ, and while I do not think they will be present in the future Kingdom of God on earth, neither do I think their existence is, in and of itself, sinful or a sign of “brokenness” in the Body of Christ.

Many denominations exist because the denominations they broke from departed from the gospel or became so culturally accommodated that they no longer represented the radical call of Christ to be salt and light. Others exist because their founders simply had a “vision” of how church can and should be more like what Christ intended and/or what the Kingdom of God will look like when it appears in its completeness and perfection. Others exist because immigrants to America (or other countries) felt the need to have churches in their own languages and that reflected their national heritages and cultures. Others exist because their founders were excluded from other denominations. Yet others exist to promote a distinctive doctrine (or set of doctrines) not taught by other denominations.

Some of these are legitimate reasons for separate denominational existence; others are bad reasons—especially for their continuing existence as separate denominations. Once a denomination exists, however, it’s difficult for it to commit institutional suicide. Some dwindle to a point where they cannot sustain themselves and simply disappear. Others merge with another (or more than one) denomination—which almost always leads to the appearance of a new denomination (or more than one) of members dissatisfied with the merger. And on it goes.

My main point is that “denominationalism” in and of itself, separate from sectarianism (belief that it alone is the only true expression of authentic Christianity), is not sin even if it is not the ideal that Christ would want for his people. And, further, sometimes a denomination can be a gift of God—accommodated to our human brokenness. Without denominations we would be bereft of many, perhaps most, charitable organizations, mission agencies, publishing houses, educational institutions, etc.

The goal, given the reality of denominations, should not be “visible and institutional unity” of all churches into one great denomination with a headquarters but “reconciled diversity”—intercommunion, joint worship, pulpit exchanges, cooperation in the work of the Kingdom. Many denominations have those features. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, many, perhaps most, Americans (perhaps others as well) seem to think a denomination is always, by its very nature as a denomination, sectarian (as defined above). That is simply not the case.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 7, 2015

The "Man Problem" Is Finally Getting Some Attention...But Not Enough

Next Post

November 10, 2015 Just Passed a Milestone! One Thousand Posts!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the Christian principle about speaking words?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Never speak Always be silent Speak with love and grace Speak harshly