As denominations have weakened, the Christian identities that denominations cultivated have lessened. People seem less aware of what it means to be a Baptist or a Methodist or a Lutheran. Presbyterians and Methodists move easily from a congregation of one denomination to a congregation of the other, as if Arminian and Calvinist positions are best resolved on the basis of which congregation has the better youth ministry program. The Pew U.S. Religious Landscape researchers conclude that “44 percent of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.” This denomination switching has resulted in an altered sense of Christian identity and religious practices. At my United Methodist congregation in Pittsburgh, I have seen people cross themselves at the communion rail and occasionally genuflect as they enter the pew. I’m no expert on Methodist piety, but I don’t think these practices are taught on confirmation retreats. Patterns of piety and religious practice have theological homes that shape a way of being Christian, but as practices are separated from those homes and blended with other practices, the theological coherence of any particular Christian identity is strained.

— Daniel Aleshire, "The Future Has Arrived: Changing Theological Education in a Changed World," Address to the ATS/COA Biennial Meeting, 2010.
http://www.ats.edu/Resources/PapersPresentations/BiennialMeetings/Documents/2010/2010Aleshire-FutureHasArrived.pdf

Aleshire's description of the main current in American religious culture is not new. Researchers and observers of the demise of denominationalism have been talking about this for years, and churches and, to some degree, institutions of theological education have struggled with the implications for the past few decades with greater and lesser degrees of success. One may well ask, however, what constitutes success? For denominational institutionalists, success would mean the fiscal and institutional stability (if not growth) of the denomination and her attendant organs. By that count, there hasn't been much success. For those who have abandoned denominationalism in favor of independent (or functionally independent) congregations, success is similarly defined as numerical growth in members and fiscal/institutional stability or growth. The success rate there is a mixed bag. While some churches do realize those goals, we have all seen others (anecdotally, most, in my part of the world) struggle with finances, internal political stability, and fiscal solvency. There might be talk about the spiritual growth of members in both the traditional denominations and in more congregationalist, but the American value system always seems to lead us back to questions about membership numbers and the size of budgets.

What I find distressing about the identity question is not the decline of denominationalism per se. What I find distressing is the way in which denominations (and congregations) seem willing to sacrifice identity in order to achieve the numbers (membership and fiscal) which count as success in the current climate.

Backtracking just a little here: I want to be clear about identity. Too often, identity has been thought of in terms that are purely ethnic or cultural and have little connection to the tradition denominated by the denomination's name. Sorry, all you Lutherans out there: coffee is not the identity of Lutheranism nor are covered dish dinners. At the same time, I don't want to strip away all the trappings of church life and say that there are no identifiers other than the Christ. Indeed, Christ is the source and end of our identity, but I think that we can talk in terms of embodying that identity in defferent ways. Here, and only recently, did I stumble into thinking about identity in terms of charism. I began to ask myself not "What is the identity of Lutheranism?" but rather "What is the charism of Lutheranism?" What gift does Lutheranism bring to and bestow upon the church? I should note that the same question may be and should be asked of every tradition—so, for those of other traditions, I suggest you work on that question.

Returning then and restating my concern: what I find distressing is the way in which denominations (and congregations) seem willing to abandon their charisms in order to conform to the world's standards. Charism is itself a gift. God forms and reforms religious communities over time. In the push and pull of history, Providence works to make of the different religious traditions the diverse members of the church in its extension. Just as not all members of the Body have the same gifts, it seems that not all collectives of humans have the same gifts, but each is given its gift for the building up of the whole church. At this point in history, however, it does seem that denominations have said, "I'd rather be a hand than a foot; I'd rather be an ear than a mouth."

Now, because of market pressures and, sadly, denominational pressures, our theological schools are more and more asked to deemphsize the charisms of their respective traditions in favor of some nondescript, generic pan-Protestantism as if all churches should be painted white with a large black stripe along the side and the single word Church (with the ingredients being bland preaching, vague teaching, but a great youth group with lots of pizza parties and bowling trips). Pop the roof off the building, and inside you will find something you could swear is just a low salt version of the stuff in the white block building with black stripe marked Social Work Agency. Yes, even our seminaries are on a trajectory for nondescript, generic theological education, and the Association of Theological Schools bears some of the blame.

I'm not suggesting that the answer to the situation Aleshire describes is retrenchment into charism. Indeed, retrenchment probably wouldn't reverse the slide in the numbers; it might even hasten the demise of denominations in the worldly way we talk about such things. I am suggesting that a full embrace of our particular charisms is the faithful response to the situation Aleshire describes. Since God has given us our charisms, it is epitome of poor stewardship and a mark of ingratitude to ignore them. Unapologetically lifting up our charisms is doxological and gracious. We can't be to others what God has given us to be if we don't embrace and share what God has given us to be. Without this integrity, we disintegrate.

What then of the demise of denominations? Denominations have forgotten why they exist. Denominations should exist to support the charisms which have been given to each. Tragically, denominations have fallen into the same fix as those denominational congregations they criticize: denominations have become just as focused on the "building."

Whether denominationalism survives or we enter fully into a new era of post-denominationalism makes no difference. It is the charism which matters. A denomination which does not embrace its charism deserves no loyalty. It is nothing more than a logo which signifies nothing which you couldn't find in any other big box store. It might as well be a mega-church or an independent country congregation. If it stands for nothing more than ensuring its own institutional survival while preaching an impoverished and generic gospel, why not go where there is a better youth program or, if you are clergy, a better pension plan? Indeed, denominationalism or post-denominationalism, without charism, will be a future of uniform banality.

If the denominations will not embrace the charisms once entrusted to them, then it is left to us who have experienced the blessings of these charisms and do not wish to hoard them to lift them up. We may have to find new ways to do this (or rediscover old ways), but one thing is certain: the great homogenization of the church is not a road worthy of the diverse gifts of God.

— The Rev. Matthew Lynn Riegel, Chaplain
Lutheran Campus Ministry at WVU
5 October 2010

As always, I consider this sort of thing a work in progress. I reserve the right to change my thinking in response to salutary criticism. I also own the fact that these essays are usually put out there in the same way that a conversation at the pub develops. Thesis and antithesis can only play off each other if someone tosses a thesis—even a not fully formed thesis—into the ring. If you would like to comment (and engage others), you may do so through Facebook's Notes app by clicking here.