This article first appeared in the Fall/Winter 2008 edition of In Touch Magazine. For reprint permission contact the Director of Public Relations at 1-800-251-6227.

by Bruce Guenther

Do denominations really matter? This question arises frequently in our congregations, and even among our pastors. In response, denominational leaders use a range of utilitarian and pragmatic reasons for explaining the importance of denominational loyalty and supporting denominational initiatives. For example, “we can do more by pooling resources; there is greater efficiency in working together; and it is good for congregations to be part of a larger structure where there is a greater degree of accountability.” All of these reasons are plausible and even compelling, but is it possible to offer a theological rationale for why denominations matter?

Denominationalism’s Bad Reputation
Denominationalism has been soundly condemned by theologians such as H. Richard Niebuhr, who claimed that denominationalism represented “the moral failure of Christianity,” and Lesslie Newbigin, who considered it the “form in which the privatization of religion is expressed.” Interest in denominationalism has diminished as loyalty to institutions in general has waned during the latter half of the twentieth century.

Many church leaders no longer consider the maintenance of denominational structures and institutions as necessary or relevant, and therefore treat denominational structures like another parachurch organization. It is not uncommon to meet “denominational nomads,” that is, people who have been part of congregations belonging to a variety of denominations. Some of this can be attributed to the geographical mobility of people who find themselves in a community that does not have a congregation that is part of a denomination of which they were previously a part. For many, denominational identity is at best a secondary consideration when finding a church: churchgoers routinely use their experience as consumers to “shop” for a church in reasonable geographic proximity that will meet their “needs.”

I believe it is possible (and necessary) to articulate a response to denominationalism that avoids the divisiveness, elitism and exclusivity of the past, that moves beyond a utilitarian pragmatism, and that challenges the cavalier and ahistoric pronouncements of the arrival of a post-denominational era, and the individualistic consumerism of some Christians in the present.

The Historical Evolution of Denominationalism
Scholars have noted that denominations came into being in America during the eighteenth century almost by accident out of an environment in which churches transplanted from various parts of Europe began to mingle, and in which the government refused to privilege one religious group over others. As a result, churches were forced to adapt their religious affirmations to the principles of voluntarism and free association.

Early in the twentieth century, the ecumenical movement tried, with limited success, to redirect interdenominational cooperation towards a comprehensive merger of denominations. By mid century, personal loyalties and identities began shifting away from large national denominational entities towards local communities and congregations, and towards broader transdenominational categories of identification.

The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed an unprecedented proliferation of denominations, particularly in Africa, as Christianity became a global religion.

The Ideas and Contribution of Jeremiah Burroughs
The architects of denominational theory were the so-called “Independents” among the seventeenth-century Puritans in England. Jeremiah Burroughs, born in 1599, was one of the most influential spokespersons for these “Independents” or “Dissenting Brethren,” during a time characterized by intense political and ecclesiastical conflict. The American historian Winthrop Hudson distilled six principles from Burrough’s work that can still be used as a partial frame for understanding and guiding denominationalism in the twenty-first century.

First, doctrinal differences among Christians are inevitable. “So long as we live here in this muddy world,” writes Burroughs, there will continue to be divisions even among godly truth-seeking persons, particularly on secondary matters. Burroughs readily acknowledged that some divisions among Christians are due to human weakness and sin, but there are some matters on which the Bible is simply not clear. The reality of differences does not, however, give license to condemn others as false or as apostate; rather, it requires a posture of humility on the part of all Christians as they recognize the limitations of their own understanding. According to Burroughs, differences should serve as an incentive to test motivations and to continue seeking further illumination from the Holy Spirit.

Second, doctrinal differences in secondary matters are still important. Burroughs argues that only the Bible, and not any human authority, has the right to dictate to the conscience its understanding on secondary matters. Christians are obligated to practice what they believe and to pursue the implications of honestly held convictions. Denominations are a place where differences can manifest themselves without creating intense conflict among Christians.

Third, differences among Christians can be useful. Burroughs argues that even divisions precipitated by human weakness and sin can be used by God for his own purposes. In these divisions, “God is working out ends above our reach for his glory and the good of his Saints.” Moreover, divisions among Christians call for and strengthen wisdom, faith, love, humility, patience, self-denial, and meekness. “In times of division men had need [to] stir up all their graces, and be very watchful over their ways, and walk exactly, be circumspect, accurate in their lives.”

Fourth, because no group of Christians has a complete grasp of divine truth, the true Church of Christ can never be fully represented by any single ecclesiastical structure. Burroughs and his colleagues argued that the New Testament had not prescribed one particular way of organizing Christian communities.

Fifth, true unity among Christians is based on the common gospel and overshadows other differences that may exist among Christians. True unity should be expressed through cooperation between denominations. Burroughs makes it very clear that all Christians, despite their differences, are nevertheless united in Christ.

Sixth, denominational diversity is not necessarily schism. The problem of what to do when an institutional expression of the church becomes corrupt or apostate has often created dilemmas for Christians. The fact that alternative denominational options exist has made it possible for some Christians to live an authentic life of discipleship and witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ (e.g., the confessing church in Germany during the 1930s). As Hans Küng has pointed out, in such instances, it is not denominationalism that is the cause of disunity, but rather careless syncretism.

Conclusion
Several additional considerations not mentioned by Jeremiah Burroughs also need to be included in the construction of a theological response to denominationalism.

First, a theology of denominationalism must hold in tension the biblical emphasis on unity and the reality of differences among Christians. Christian unity begins with the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and not with human initiatives, practices or agreements. The familial-like unity envisioned by the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 4) is a reality despite the divisions and disagreements that continue to exist among Christians. Jesus' prayer for the unity of those who would believe (John 17) seems to envision a unity that is more than a mystical, spiritual reality, because it is to be seen by others and is to be a factor in convincing people that Jesus is who he claimed to be. The “one body” metaphor by Paul also seems to imply some sort of tangible connection between the one and the many. Does unity imply uniformity, does it direct us towards a singular organizational form, or does it demand of us mutual respect, and a degree of fellowship and cooperation? I think the latter is most probable.

Second, postmodernism has generated an interest in particularities as a reaction to the imposition of totalizing metanarratives. We cannot express or embody our faith apart from cultural forms. This interest in cultural particularities creates a new opportunity for denominations, especially those that have a clear sense of their theological identity and vision, that can articulate it in a narrative form, and that can present it in a relational way, inviting people to be a part of a community that is participating in an ongoing story (or narrative).

Martin Marty writes, “Denominations are not disappearing but changing, they are coming to be more like extended families – operating with memory and sensibility, ethos and kinship – than like creedal or other conformity engendering units.” Denominations that are able to adjust to such a pluralistic cultural reality, and that are able to avoid expressing their particular identities in exclusive, elitist ways, and that are able to celebrate the collective diversity that is embodied by denominations as necessary for seeing more clearly the mysteries and complexities of the kingdom of God, may still have a future.

This article is excerpted from a longer paper Bruce Guenther, PhD, Associate Professor of Church History and Mennonite Studies at our Langley, British Columbia campus (Associated Canadian Theological Schools), presented at the 16th annual Believer’s Church Conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba in June 2008.