Ken Carter has written an essay arguing for the importance of denominations. His starting point is the problem of authority and governance. Using a non-denominational church as an example, he shows what happens when authority is situated only in the local congregation (and its pastor), and the problems that arise for staff and when conflict arises.

I love the local church. It is the basic context for the mission of making disciples for the transformation of the world. At the same time, the local church will, on occasion, be stronger as it accomplishes mission that is beyond its own capacity, and as it is accountable to a wisdom that is outside its own day to day movements. Here the analogy of Ronald Heifitz of the dance and the balcony is helpful. Faithful congregations and clergy are engaged in the dance, the daily and weekly movements that, added together, shape parish life: worship, spiritual formation, pastoral care, local and global outreach, evangelism. A balcony perspective, in times of health and in times of crisis, will help the local church to sustain this activity. The absence of such a balcony perspective, in particular circumstances, can lead to chaos and a constricting of the movement of energy. A denomination, at its best, provides that balcony perspective: a person in authority who can intervene in a season of conflict, or a compelling and needed mission that can lift the vision of a community beyond itself.

Carter’s essay is here.

One can see these dynamics at play in the Episcopal Church. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen increasing debate over national structure. This week saw the emergence of an investigation into the Episcopal Bishop of South Carolina (follow the story here, here, and here). Episcopalians believe our polity (bishops, dioceses, local parishes) is not simply a matter of convenience or “best practices,” but rather that it reflects the New Testament understanding of church (to be sure, Baptists, Presbyterians, et al, believe the same).

I think Carter is asking the wrong question. By focusing on conflict, authority, governance, and structure, he is emphasizing organization rather than mission and ministry. Few denominations, even when identified in terms of polity (Episcopal, Presbyterian) were created to embody that particular structure. Instead, they emerged out of unique theological, spiritual, and liturgical insights, which together make up their ethos. If denominations are to survive, it is because they will continue to embody a particular vision of the church, one that is not embodied in other forms of Christianity.

It’s when we lose sight of that, a particular ethos, charism, or voice, that denominations atrophy and deserve to die. At the same time, many of those non-denominational churches which Carter mentions have come to take on the characteristics of denominations, even if they don’t admit it. I think what we’re seeing, though, may not be the end of denominations, but their transformation into something different, more organic and fluid, and less structured.

I suppose the question for me in a case like the Diocese of South Carolina, is whether it continues to embody the charism of Anglicanism in its current form. I’m not able to make that judgment from this distance.