In this age of UBER-individualism (sadly, even among Christians) people LOVE to go it alone, be "a unique individual" (they say that as if that's a good thing). This carries over into doctrine. "I agree with NO ONE and NO ONE has ever agreed with me!" they shout as if that's good. All of Christianity is me, myself and I. THAT'S all that matters, all that's important. Extreme individualism entered with the Enlightenment - and it's matastasised, like a cancer, all over Christianity. The move to non-denoms, anti-creeds is all just symptoms of the cancer. And it's all mixed with a HEAVY dose of its necessary companion relativism (there is no truth, just your opinion - and your opinion is the only one that counts).
I think there are a few issues at play here.
As you say there is an increasing push to be ME, ME, ME, ME because, you know, I'm a special and unique individual. Which is all well and good - I am a unique individual (how special I am is a matter of opinion) but I can't simply create my own reality however much I might like to think I can. I can read the Bible and form my conclusions as to what it means and the chances are that if you compare my conclusions to any given denomination there will be areas where I agree and areas where I disagree. If I find a denomination that perfectly reflects my own interpretation of Scripture the chances are that's the denomination I'll join, at least notionally. If I find a denomination that adequately reflects my own interpretation of Scripture, or a church affiliated with a denomination where the church adequately reflects my interpretation of Scripture, I won't have a problem with attending that church. When I say "adequately reflects" I mean to say that there are no glaring contradictions that I just can't live with, or that any contradictions are in matters we can both consider secondary.
In many regards it's rather like voting in a presidential election. I might look at the Republican platform and the Democrat platform, decide which one I think is best going forward, and then vote accordingly. If I vote for a candidate it doesn't mean I agree with everything they say and do, nor does it mean I agree with every stance of their party, merely that I agree with more of what they want to do than with what the other party wants to do.
At the same time as individualism is rising, an inevitable byproduct of that is an increasing reluctance to be pigeonholed. Somewhat ironically, there seems to be an increasing tendency to try and pigeonhole people even as we ourselves don't want to be pigeonholed. It's easier to write someone off based on associating them with some group with whom we disagree, as if that alone were sufficient to counter their arguments. For example, someone presenting a right-wing political view may get a response that's little more than "spoken like a true Republican", as if that were all it took to counter the viewpoint. The tendency to seek to divide people into two camps, based on whatever dividing line it takes, such that we can use appropriate virtue signalling to indicate that we are on the right side, and The Other Guy is on the wrong side. Needless to say there can only be two camps - the right one and the wrong one - and any tactic to discredit The Other Side is considered acceptable.
Community, humility, truth - these, sadly, are ancient and in large part abandoned concepts. And this has sadly infected Christianity. The result is the individualism we see ("What the Bible says to ME...." etc., etc., etc), the rise of non-denominationalism (where every church wants total independence to do and say WHATEVER it wants), anti-theology and anti-creeds (truth is your personal, individual opinion). The Enlightenment - a pagan philosophical movement - has totally infected Christianity, the matastasis has been nearly total. Houston, we've got a problem. But it's where we are. And the disease will advance, unchecked, as long as we embrace it. Yup, as all know, it's one of my constant rants, lol
I think this is an area where we need to strike a balance. You're certainly correct in that concepts like "To me, God is....." are popular these days when the reality is that God is God and our opinions do nothing to change his characteristics. If the Christian worldview is correct then people who believe in Vishnu and Ganesh are wrong; if the Hindu worldview is correct then Yahweh is a false god, and so on. It makes no sense to argue that "to me, Miami is a small village a few miles east of Seattle" and yet people truly seem to believe they can create their own god based on their liking.
It does seem eminently reasonable for people to read Scripture and seek to understand its meaning for themselves, rather than simply accepting what the guy in the pulpit on Sunday says it means. At the same time the quest needs to be to find the objective truth contained within Scripture rather than pretending there's some message in there that is only for me because, you know, I'm special enough to have my own path and nobody gets to tell me what to do. If we truly seek to know Christ and mold ourselves to his image I don't see a problem. If we are trying to use Scripture to mold Christ to our image, then we have a problem.
