Denominations in Time

Denominations in Time June 10, 2015

In a 2005 piece in Word & World, Russell Richey argues that denominationalism in the US has passed through several stages of development. Though denominationalism always exists in situations of religious pluralism and is always (like the political party, the free press and free enterprise) a “creature of modernity,” it has not always taken the same form.

Richey writes, “First, denominations and denominationalism shift gradually from strategies of expansiveness to efforts at consolidation. Second, the separate cyclical phases yield distinct stages or styles of denominational governance and cohesion, identifiable denominational periods. Third, each stage evidences significant cultural adaptation. Fourth, certain stages, particularly the more expansive, open the denominational system to new partners, new denominations whose energy, creativity, success, and aggressiveness negotiate their admission to the system of denominationalism” (16).

Several of the stages that Richey describes are of particular interest. In the mid-nineteenth century, in response to struggles over political questions (slavery, civil war, reconstruction), denominations emphasized confessional purity and church order: “Often drawing on the deep wells of their distinctive traditions, sometimes enjoying the stimuli of trans-Atlantic conversation, occasionally reacting to the confessional energies of new immigrant populations, denominations sought to put their ecclesial houses in order. Such efforts produced discord, even division. Such efforts produced discord, even division. When schism occurred, each new denomination found confessional, theological, liturgical, or ecclesial purpose in its separate identity” (18). That is: Richey claims that harder, less permeable denominational boundaries are the product of the nineteenth century and connected to political struggles that engulfed the US.

The twentieth century, he observes, has seen, on the one hand, the corporatization of the church and, on the other, a late twentieth century resistance to all forms of central power and bureaucratic regularity. Again, the form of denominational life has followed the trends of the culture, from efficiency and professionalization to informal networking.

Richey reviews this history against the backdrop of the current decline of denominations, for which he thinks there is abundant evidence. Putting the current denominational woes in historical perspective leaves open the possibility that denominationalism will survive, and that what appear to be “denominational death throes may instead be those of birth—to a new religious personhood that may differ markedly from what we now know” (20).

(Richey, “Denominations and Denominationalism: Past, Present, and Future, Word & World 25:1 [2005] 15-22.)


Browse Our Archives