Nancy Ammerman briefly examines the “shifting terrain” at the close of her essay in Denominationalism . Choice seems to have taken over the religious landscape, displacing ethnic associations, family and upbringing. Many change denominations during their lifetimes; fewer think it important to marry within their denominations. Congregations function independently of the head office, gathering educational, liturgical, musical, and other resources from the potluck of consumer religion.
There is something holding denominations together, though: Money. “In the most concrete of terms, if the congregation refuses to give . . . the congregation has left the denominational fold. Short of that, it may deviate and have alternative allegiances on a host of other matters of policy and practice” (125).
She follows with this shrewd observation about the informal signals that churches have come up with to identify their flavor - especially to identify themselves as liberal or conservative: “Links to nondenominational education and mission agencies have held the fundamentalist network together for most of [the 20th] century. When fundamentalists moved from one town to another, they were able to find another ‘Bible believing' church, without the aid of denominational labels, mostly by looking for programmatical and liturgical clues.” This wasn't just pragmatism on the part of fundamentalists: “This loosely linked, entrepreneurial organizational strategy was part of the fundamentalist refusal to accept the rational/legal, bureaucratic terms dictated by ‘modernity'” (125).
There's an ironic twist to this story: As fundamentalists have taken the reins in several denominations, they have had to accommodate to modern organizational expectations. Meanwhile, “other groups that long ago accepted modern organizational imperatives are now moving in postmodern fashion toward structures that look rather like what fundamentalists have been using all along” (125). For fundamentalists, to be told that they were on the cutting edge of ecclesial organization is at best a mixed compliment.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Denominationalism
Continue reading related articles
Denominirony
Denominationalism encourages a stance of irony (insincerity, Charles Morrison called it in his 1953 The Unfinished Reformation , 46). We must think our denominational “distinctives” are important, or we wouldn't be in the denomination. We are willing to use identifying language and markers to associate ourselves with those distinctives–church names,…
Denominations and Sects
In a classic 1962 paper, “The Denomination,” David Martin challenged the prevailing idea that a denomination is an “advanced stage in the development of a sect.” As a sect becomes wealthy and well-established, it softens its rigor, becomes more tolerant and less perfectionist, and eventually settles in comfortably as a…
Denomination—Creed, Organization, Culture
N ancy Ammerman's contribution to Denominationalism is outstanding. She asks what we're studying when we study denominations, and she comes up with three answers: A group of Christian communities defined by a common set of beliefs and practices; an organization; and a cultural profile (evident, for instance, in Episcopalian jokes).…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.