It's become a general assumption among those who study American Christianity that we're in a post-denominational age. If you look out across the ecclesiastical landscape of our country, that's a hard thing to deny.
The oldline denominations are all in decline, each in their own version of a long slow death spiral that began in the 1960s. That was the point, of course, when the boomers rebelled against the staid formalism of deeply ungroovy denominational churches. This was a generation that wanted freedom and openness, a chance to
do their own thing in their own time, man. Church needed to be more authentic, more alive...and from thence arose the nondenominational movement. It had always been there, of course, little churches scattered throughout the countryside, but in that perfect conjunction, it flourished. The older churches kept doing what they were doing, and the denominationalism that had defined faith in this country for a hundred years entered it's waning years.
That's the story, anyway.
But I'm just not sure it's true. Oh, it was true a decade ago. It's sorta true now. There's no question the oldline is still declining. The organizational forms of the 19th and early 20th century no longer hold sway.
But that does not mean the end of denominations. Instead, it's arguable that new denominations are beginning to arise from the ashes of the old, ones that have their genesis in the "nondenominational movement." All organizations...and churches with a small "c" are organizations...seek to maintain their institutional structures, and to spread.
On a variety of fronts, we're beginning to see what might at first seem like just mega-church spillover. "Informal associations" of smaller churches, desperate to survive in our *cough* competitive church marketplace, have glommed on to the methodologies of the big boys, borrowing messages and training materials and worship themes. Media-based ministries have begun to plant franchise churches, in which a live praise team and a worship leader play off against a "message" beamed directly from the motherchurch. Nationally, that occurs with the mo'-money-mo'-money-mo'-money Word Faith Churches. Here in Washington, our own Mclean Bible Church has begun establishing satellite ministries, which are basically movie theaters in which people can watch a piped-in message on a large screen in 7.1 surround. As much as I find it horrifying, it works. People go, because it seems familiar. Why? Because it is deeply rooted in our culture.
In the same way that the oldline structures modeled themselves after varying forms of governmental bureaucracy, the new denominationalism has more intentionally structured itself on the corporate model of governance. You control your product. You maintain stringent boundaries on brand identity. You make sure that franchisees present the same worship environment, in the same way that a Subway in Sheboygan looks exactly the same as the one in the strip mall near you. You know, the one next to the Footlocker.
Welcome to the American Church of the Future, brothers and sisters! Praise the Ford!
.jpg)
Comments (11)
I would agree with you- This whole 'non-denominational' movement is stupid because they still are creating a liturgy all their own. It's a marketing thing.
People tend to forget that the Church is the Body of Christ...not just a social network.
I think also that the old mainline churches often need to die as they had grown so comfortable and out of touch with why they came into being in the first place. I think what will emerge in the next century will not be the death of denominations but something wonderful. Sometime a church or a congregation needs to die but out of those ashes something good is likely to take place. I am not worried; if our churches stick with the word of God all will be good.. and not just to float your boat David, but I am really impressed with the people who have come out of Presbyterian USA and ELCA seminaries in the last decade or so and I am made hopeful in such people.
People seem always to spring from one pole to another, either too much freedom or too much structure. Frankly, I think that people want more laws and fence rules, a static and "ready-made" set of guidelines for how to live their lives, which nondenominational churches just aren't that big on. Besides, I think that most people are beginning to recognize the failure in attending a nondenominational church when nondenominationalism is, in fact, a denomination.
I could be wrong, but in my experience, I'm finding tons of people flocking to mainline churches, not away from them -- especially the sooper-structured Catholics and Episcopalians. Because, hey, if the church gives us enough rules to live by, maybe we'll never need the Holy Spirit at all!
Something I've been known to wax poetic about is the distinction between uniformity and conformity, in which uniformity is subjugation to God and conformity is subjugation to mankind.
@GermanWrench -
I don't know what Episcopal churches you've been hearing about. But Episcopal churches, while high liturgy (and even that varies from church to church) are rather low on rules, and are also beginning the process (albeit slowly) of trying to step out "in the Spirit" (for lack of a better term) in a rather new, scary (for them), post-denominational world.
Though your point about swinging from one pole to the other is well taken. I couldn't agree more. That seems to be what Paul is railing against in both his Corinthian Epistles (on one end) and his Epistle to the Galatians (on the other).
-A. Rust
@mckrlshrk2_0 -
I've only been to one Episcopal church, and it had the same smothering feeling as Mass -- do this and you might go to Heaven, don't do that and you will go to Hell. Maybe it was just that particular church, though. Honestly I haven't had much experience with it.
I agree with this post -- most nondenominational churches are developing their own networks which function in a lot of the same ways as old-fashioned denominations, except without much in the way of labels to distinguish each other by. I'd say the new categories are less distinct, with the laity quite ignorant about the movements that produced their own theology, and about the differences between them and others who might identify as "non-denominational" but come from rather different non-denominational traditions.
I'm not sure if you're a fan of Micheal Horton's writing, but he wrote a great book much in the same vein, "Made In America". In it he talks quite a bit about "marketing" Christianity. He makes some really good points.
I, myself have no problem with the Reformed incarnation of the Episcopal church. They keep it in perspective that all that high church liturgy is nothing more than tradition and symbols and is of no soteriological signifigance whatsoever. As long as the oldline denoms can keep that perspective, all those liturgical trappings don't have to be stifling. I know for some they are and that's fine. Just keep a wide berth from their services and fellowship in every other way possible.
As a side note, you know the NICOC consider themselves to be un-denominational...like 7-Up, the Un-Cola! Now that's 'Merican Christianity, son.
Having said that, whatever church she's at...I'm there! (I found one for you with the choir in action.)
spiritus: Aaaah! Thanks for the link! That, sir, is some fine Gospel. I need to spend me some more time with Sister Rosetta.
Like the "Willow Creek" aka "community church" denomination...
I guess I would say one difference with the current "non-denominational" churches that still follow some particular format or formula, though, is that many are still legally and financially independent of some denominational hierarchy and able to determine their own path at the local level. They may choose to follow the mother ship in a lot of ways, but at least their are more options and slightly fewer rules. That is what has typically attracted me to nondenominational churches (or independent Baptist churches).