The Place of Denominations in Christian Unity

Why, I wonder, do mainline Christian denominations put so much emphasis on unity at the denominational level? Why are formal mergers, divisions, and dissolutions of our denominational structures so important?

Within United Methodism, the annual conference closes some congregations and reorganize others. They do it to districts, too. Circuits become stations and stations become circuits. Districts lure members from existing congregations to start new churches. Congregations create and close worship opportunities. They start and stop new ministries and reorganize groups as they see fit. Annual conferences come in and out of existence at the pleasure of the jurisdiction. Congregations and annual conferences assert their autonomy as they resist or ignore elements of general church law. These events can create as much hurt and disharmony as denominational divisions. What makes them less important than what happens on the denominational level?

Denominations are a recent invention in the history of the church. The Catholic Church's monopoly ended in the west with the Protestant Reformation, but even that didn't create denominations as we know them today. The Peace of Augsburg established the principle of cuius regio, eius religio ("whose region, his religion") to provide internal religious unity in every political realm. The only real question was whether, and to what degree, the existence of dissenting religious associations would be tolerated.

It is primarily in the United States that the denominational system as we know it developed during the 19th and 20th centuries. With no established religion, denominations competed for members and influence like businesses. Rival congregations set up shop side by side in town. Congregations were identified by their well-known denominational brand names.

American denominations came to play a significant role in creating a social identity for individuals and communities. Respect for the church as an institution was pervasive and life-long denominational loyalties were common. Churches developed full slates of programs that occupied members' time, not just on Sundays but throughout the week. Denominations put their brand on schools, colleges, seminaries, publishing houses, book stores, orphanages, senior citizens homes, and hospitals, Loyal members could much live much of their lives in a denominational cocoon.

Denominations overlaid their distinctive beliefs and practices with hierarchical structures and business practices that drew from corporate and governmental models. Denominations participating in the ecumenical movement which came to prominence in the last century characterized Christian unity in the same way. Unity must be visible, they said, and by visible they meant organizational. Denominations moved toward unity, they believed, by creating formal, corporately approved agreements at the denominational level, with organizational unification being the ultimate goal.

That understanding has shifted over the years but its influence is still felt in the so-called mainline churches. Many good things have come out of what I playfully describe as bureaucratic ecumenism. Its exclusive focus on certain forms of corporate unity, however, is not one of them. A big piece of the picture is missing. Bigwigs at the top of denominational pyramids signing pieces of paper are not the only form of Christian unity that matters. It's not even the most important form. Neither is organizational separation the most important form of division within the church.

As we leave that social world of the mid 20th century behind, fixed ecclesiastical structures, labels and boundaries will become increasingly less relevant. Denominational loyalties and identities are quickly fading in importance. The ecclesiastical environment will become much more fluid, and with it our understanding of the unity of the church.

The church can no longer be conceived of as a single hierarchy or even as a group of parallel denominational hierarchies. Visibly, the church is an ever-evolving network of networks, some formal, some informal. The embodied church consists of multiple overlapping layers. Its fullness exists at multiple levels simultaneously. We may use words like connectional and congregational to describe forms of church government, but in truth, almost every church is connectional in the broadest sense of that word. Every church is congregational, as well. The church even exists in organizations and relationships that transcend ecclesiastical boundaries, from para-church evangelistic associations to Christian advocacy groups to chaplaincy programs to neighborhood Bible studies to regular conversations over coffee.

Let me give you a concrete example of what I mean. It was not long after I arrived in Nashville that I learned about Room in the Inn, a ministry of shelter for the homeless during the cold winter months (and other related services throughout the year). My wife and I regularly visited from church to church each Sunday, including congregations from other denominations. Every church we visited seemed to participate in this city-wide ministry. Around 200 congregations in the Nashville area take turns providing shelter to nearly 1,500 men and women from November 1 through March 31 each year. Some churches even remodeled their facilities so that they could give their guests a better place to sleep, eat, wash their clothes and shower. If that's not "visible unity", I don't know what is.

If the unity of the church is visible apart from denominational identities, the converse is also true. The church's brokenness and division are visible even within denominational walls. Within United Methodist circles, for example, I think this hardly needs to be discussed. Disunion and dysfunction are readily apparent. Maintaining a brand and a logo won't fool the world.

Something like denominations will always be necessary for the life of the church, but the unity of the church does not depend solely, or even primarily, on the persistence or coherence of their organizational structures.