The Problem of institutions (Part I)
A living system perspective of community and organization is just the one aspect of what it means to be a truly organic missional church. To get a clearer perspective of the nature of Apostolic Genius, especially as it expresses itself in the Early Church and in the Chinese phenomenon, we will need to explore the dynamics of what it means to be and to become a movement
Let me say up front that in prescribing a recovery of this aspect of organic systems I am not trying to be anarchic and anti-institutional for the sake of it. In fact I think that the anarchist approach to church is misinformed about the nature of living systems in general and Apostolic Genius in particular and is in itself loaded with political agendas. And rather than thinking of the Early Church as non-institutional, we need to think of it rather as ‘pre-institutional.’
All living systems require some form of structure in order to maintain and perpetuate their existence. And while it is entirely true that structure does not in itself create life (as in a machine,) without it life cannot exist for very long. The more complex a living system, the more necessary it is to have an inbuilt means to maintain it. Our body for instance, is literally made up of trillions of cells, which by reference to its genetic coding, organizes itself into various systems (nervous, digestive, circulative, etc.) all interconnected and interrelated in a common purpose—to preserve and enable human life in all its forms. The soul cannot fully exist without a body (although I haven’t tried this lately). Even a flame, such as that of a candle in a closed room, will maintain a perfectly defined and predictable shape with a fixed boundary and will be sustained by the combination of its organic fuels with molecular oxygen, producing carbon dioxide and water. Life as it appears to even the lay observer, is a highly organized and phenomenon consisting in the complex interplay between static form and dynamic function. Or as Neil Cole of Church Multiplication Associates says…
“Structures are needed, but they must be simple, reproducible and internal rather than external. Every living thing is made up of structure and systems. Your body has a nervous system, a circulatory system, and even a skeletal system to add structure to the whole. The universe and nature itself teach us that order is possible even when there is no control but God Himself.”
Quite clearly there is something ‘structural’ going on in the people movements of the early periods and in China—it’s just not the same as what we have experienced. For me the question is about the right kind of living structure, or medium, appropriate to the message of the apostolic church. And this will look significantly different to what we have come to know as the top-down, institutional/governance form of church—which is by far and away the predominant structural mode of the church in the West.
And this should be fair warning to us if we wish to recover Apostolic Genius. Or as Bill Easum in a chapter titled “Christianity as an Organic Movement” says…
“Most theories about congregational life are flawed from the start because they are based on an institutional and mechanical worldview….Such a view is not biblical. Instead, it is fatalistic and self-serving because the goal is to fix and preserve the institution for as long a life as possible. Such a worldview allows one to focus on mere organizational and institutional survival rather than following Jesus onto the mission field for the purpose of fulfilling the great commission. However, the Old and New Testaments are based on an organic worldview. They clearly show a bias for ‘salvation history’ rather than institutional viability.”
He goes on to suggest that “the key to unfreezing the church to be with Jesus on the mission field is to view our congregations and denominations as the roots and shoots or an ‘organic movement’ that go far beyond organizational survival.” In other words we need to move away from institutional forms of organization and recover a movement ethos if we are going to become truly missional.
. Anarchism is a cluster of doctrines and attitudes united in the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. It is derived from a Greek root signifying “without a rule,” In our day, theological anarchism is associated with the work of the French philosopher Jacques Ellul, and others.
. Neil Cole, “Out-of-control Order: Simple Structures for a Decentralized Multiplication Movement” from an article on the CMA website http://www.organicchurchplanting.org/articles/simple_structures.asp
. The function of leadership is to grow structure, not impose it. The process is organic, the work of a gardener, not a mechanic.
. If aspects of institution can be found in the New Testament and the subsequent church, these are never allowed to bloom into full-grown institutional form as we now know it. We can say rather that these expressions of structure are pre-institutional and not fully institutional as we have come to know it.
. Bill Easum, Unfreezing Moves: Following Jesus Into the Mission Field (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 17.
. Ibid, 18.
Comments
40 Responses to “The Problem of institutions (Part I)”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Penney Winiarski said: Great resource Alan....
- Andrew said: Have been into the...
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
I appreciate the sentiment of “not being anti-institutional for the sake of it”. If I reflect historically, it’s probably just as well though the dark ages the “institutional” church provided a disciplined order for its priests/monks, who copied the scriptures, preserved the creeds and teachings of the early church fathers etc. Christian faith has been handed down over the ages largely via the “institutional” churches.
The context faced in the world now is so vastly different… Western societies are almost invariably multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-faith, pluralistic, rapidly changing, individualistic, highly mobile… it’s no wonder more of the same institutional church is unlikely to get the whole job done of reaching all with the good news of Jesus.
Hi Al,
Wonderful piece! Very provocative material that actually gets beyond binary thinking regarding institutions (eg., either good or bad). It is so refreshing to encounter an approach that honestly recognizes the problems inherent in institutional structure (as opposed to recognizing only the problems replicated in almost every institution) without concluding that we best throw out the baby with the bath water. These are profoundly fecund ruminations for a community that is trying to work out what it means to be the body of Christ in our own place and time. Thanks again!
Very thoughtful! I was just studying this concept of organic systems taking on institutional form as a matter of inevitability. Your words, the “right kind” of structure really seems to hit home for church planting practitioners. Have you read Mary Douglas’ How Institutions Think? She has a great visual called the “Grid/Group Axis” worth checking out related to this topic. Keep up the good writing!
I think there are two important things here I have been reflecting on, and that Alan alludes to. One is that that mDNA and its structure is more like gardening than factory assembly lines. The seed contains everything the plant will be. It just takes the right things added at the right time to make it grow. Second, I believe that in building an ecology like system, you “chunk”. Everything that the final product will be has to be present in some form with what you start out with. The structure itself is like this I think. Even though we may not be able to define that “final structure” the bits and pieces of it ought to be there from the first.
No fair.
You can write on the problems of institution and (somewhat) get away with it.
If I merely mention this subject within earshot of church people, I get labeled un-unified, rebellious, offended, or even lone ranger. So it goes…
Keep it up.
Agent B sounds very subversive. Actually I believe we all have to be subversives within the institution.
You know, I am in Europe at the moment and here the ubiquitousness of the institution of the church haunts the imagination and memory. But I don’t think that it casts a partcularly appealing shadow. Religion here has not been a pretty affair. And the best flowers of Christianity have been those movements that for a for (all too short) years, have been able to somehow recapture the Way of Jesus. Only to be subsumed and brought into line by the forces of the status quo.
The staus quo might be well meaning, but sincerity was a good test of truth!
I don’t know whether you can accurately call the early Church “pre-institutional”.
.
Jesus in the Gospels instituted the group of Apostles referred to as The Twelve. They formed the basis of the earliest leadership in the newly emerging Church as early as Acts 1-3
Then in Acts you get the Council of Apostles, Elders of Jerusalem debating circumcision, admission of Gentiles, Paul’s apostolic legitimacy etc.
And the early instituting of deacons to oversee the distribution of care packages to widows, orphans and other needy Christians early on in Acts implies the creation of organisational structures that alas suggest inaugurating the building of institutions, however organically grown and developed those were in those times.
But these were hardly the heavily bureaucratic institutional and church-governance models that emerged in post-Constantinian times.
I’m not anti-institutional by any means.
I believe creating certain institutions becomes necessary at various times in order to practically carry on the work of Christian mission.
As church historian, Douglas A Sweeney (2006), The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement, Baker: Grand Rapids, p. 53 says: “It is nearly impossible to perpetuate even the loftiest spiritual movements without some planning, organisation, and corporate support”.
We often need to create certain organisational structures, and indeed suitable institutions, to help us organise, resource, develop and facilitate mission in ways which make things practically sustainable as time moves on.
Creating new institutions and structures often becomes a very necessary process for the church to do to undertake effective and seriously ongoing mission work in ways which empower it to continue making transforming inroads within communities.
I think creating relevant institutions and structures are an absolute necessity if we want to make a social difference in mission. But it is the shaping of those `things’ [institutions] to come, which I think is fairly important to consider as members of the post-Christendom church.
So I don’t regard institutions as “necessary evils” or “necessarily evil” as I have heard some of my peers describe them on various occasions over the years.
However, it is observable that many evangelicals are opposed to what Sweeney calls “the steady grind of bureaucracy” implied by the creation of church institutions (p.54). And for some good reasons too!
We’ve all had our fill of corrupt, authoritarian and overly controlling institutions which always seem to block real missional progress due to putting things like unnecessary bureaucratic red-tape in the way due to unwarranted resistance to changes to their existing status quo ways of doing things.
In light of our history with institutions, Sweeney puts it this way: “We [evangelicals] have erred most often, in fact, by failing to take our social structures seriously. As people committed to surmounting social boundaries with the gospel, we often neglect the institutions needed to further kingdom work…Church history abounds with a chronic tension between Spirit and structure, or dynamic spirituality and its static, albeit necessary, structural supports. Some point to a pattern in Christian history in which no sooner are the church and its institutions revitalized than the agents of change seek to conserve their renewal in (new) institutional forms. These forms themselves become petrified, and those dependent on the forms languish in need of revival again. Such history has hardly inspired confidence in the promise of institutions” (ibid).
I have a lengthy work history of working within Church welfare agencies (institutions). One of my privileges has been being involved in a few that grew somewhat organically in response to meeting some localized welfare need within my local community. However, over the course of time, as funding has become scarce, I have observed a process which sometimes looks like this:
1) Begins as a grassroots local church response to some practical need involving a few passionate people
2) Becomes successful due to its innovative missional approach
3) Gets funding support of local church
4) Becomes an `agency’ (institution), with employees, corporate charter, mission statement, buildings etc.
5) Funding diminishes for one reason or another, and seeks secular sponsorship, which inevitably comes with `catches’
6) Waters down its original vision to meet those `catches’ (e.g. demands of `political correctness’, particularly to do with obtaining government funding etc.)
7) Loses its missional independence, credibility, and innovativeness because it can no longer do things like openly share the Gospel if it wants to be politically correct to retain its funding from government or corporate sponsorship, and becomes just like any other secular welfare agency
Sweeney talks about a process of corruption which often occurs regarding Church institutions and occurs from forces within those organizations.
He says, “In attempting to regularize revival, to bottle our leaders’ moral charisma, to coordinate the projects needed to shore up the life of the Spirit, we have built new structures than can preserve, channel, and multiply our energies. Over and over again, however, these structures themselves have become corrupt, disenchanting the movement’s purists and leading to further reformation”(p.54). What then ultimately happens is things ending up in a schism, which in turn results in brand new alternative institutions being formed in a type of counter-cultural response to inaugurate reforms and possibly reflect more contemporary-cultural responses, if I understand what Sweeney says correctly (p.54).
Pharisaic approaches toward change sometimes develop within institutions when they have lost their way.
By that I mean, overly-controlling and legalistic attitudes occurring which block much-needed change/reform in order to preserve the existing status quo ways of doing things for nostalgic and various other reasons.
Institutions are at their most dangerous when they lose sight of the people they were originally intended to serve. It is people they should serve, rather than the other way around.
Unfortunately, all-too-often we have a history of creating institutions which eventually lost sight of their accountability to the humans they were originally designed to serve due to investiture of too much power, authority and control in them.
So if we must develop them, how do we do so in ways so that they don’t become tyrannical power structures which work against the best interests of progressively-shaped mission, but become the adaptive servants of mission and the missionaries – adaptive, flexible, accountable, humane and good facilitators of cutting edge and counter-cultural mission instead of just becoming Pharisaic preservers of the existing status quo set in stone?
A postscript to my last blog entry.
Just attended an event where Sojourner’s CEO, Jim Wallis was speaking at a totally unexpected venue …Hillsong in Waterloo. He is also speaking several times at Balkham Hills Hillsong.
This was arranged by World Vision CEO, Tim Costello (my former Urban Missions lecturer when at CCTC/Whitely, in Melbourne).
Jim spoke using Mt 25’s sheep & goats teaching, alluded to times spent with Desmond Tutu during the apartheid era, and challenged the congregation to enlist themselves in the important work of promoting God’s compassion and justice in their local LGA’s. Shared alot about his own personal journey as a Christian discovering what God had to say in Scripture about Justice for the poor and how the church today must heed God’s call to be leaders in promoting it prophetically, as activists, and practically. He drew on incarnational missiological examples in washington, spoke a bit about Barak Abama’s faith journey, how he spoke to kevin Rudd about God’s justice for the poor etc.
The response from the congregation was overwhelmingly positive.
Now I found that quite subversive and counter-cultural. What if churches like Hillsong, with a reputation for being very consumeristic in their approach to things like money, actually capture visions like the Micah Vision to end world poverty etc and take it seriously? What if they really catch on to the missional/incarnational- emergent church vision?
Hillsong and churches like it are churches we emergent church people love to hate.
Well what if, somehow, they become a lot like us in the in-breaking near future?
How generously graceful will we be to them then?
Worth thinking about.
(Just being a little subversive myself for a second)
By the way, if it is not obvious, I meant to say that sincerity was never a particularly good test of truth. Sincerity serves both good and evil.
Didn’t notice the word `never’ missing until you pointed it out. Maybe the website needs an edit review stage before stuff gets finally posted so that problem can be avoided.
Just noticed a wording problem in your reply to Agent B.
Quote (cut and pasted from post) “And the best flowers of Christianity have been those movements that for a for (all too short) years, have been able to somehow recapture the Way of Jesus”.
Seems an error in the wording there. Could you clarify?
They come and go all too quickly. I guess Andrew I have a slightly different perspective of institutions from the one you have presented above. I understand that it is in the nature of things to rise and eventually fall (death and falleness qualifies all.) But I do think that biblical forms of faith struggle to survive when religious institutionalization begins to take place. I do think the renewal or revitalization movements are our best expressions and not the the more stable forms. I guess I think we were always meant to be closer to a movement than a religion or religious civilization.
Surely we can’t create sustainable organic church without entirely rethinking mission, because mission in terms of going to the poor and working for social justice demands money and that demands we institutionalise?
It demands that we structure and organize, I see a difference between that and religious institutionalization.
Can you clarify what you envisage, Alan? I’m trying to think of orthodox Jewish parallels here, and the things that come to mind are gemach, burial society and food aid for the needy. But those three (structures?) would not be competing for funds from outside organisations.
you write:
“The function of leadership is to grow structure, not impose it. The process is organic, the work of a gardener, not a mechanic”
clearly this is the key to creating functional structure that does not bind until means become ends. that is, the possible creation of this simple, organic structure seems to me to involve the right leader(s) being in place (a gardener), and he or she being willing to stay in the garden for a very long time. (does this sound a little like chauncey gardener?) anyway, the right person in the right place, and that person being there in that place for the duration, may be the prime components (dare i say it? the fertilizer…) of the organic church.
I don’t buy that the function of leadership is anything to do with growing structure, though they can do that. I don’t see the connection there. Leadership in the church is about environment, climate in the group, and what lies beneath the surface of the group as much as what is happening on the surface.
I don’t know whether you can accurately call the early Church “pre-institutional”.
.
– Communitas of the uncondemned Rom 8:1, 10
. Saintly sinners, or Sinner/saints! Royal priesthood, with unroyal habits! No wonder we find it so difficult to build structures that don’t eventually become corrupt and institutionalizing reflections of our own “fallings” given time. I guess that’s why we need prophets in our own time to critique and deconstruct, institute reforms etc of the institutions we make to some extent in own fall-short images.
Jesus in the Gospels instituted the group of Apostles referred to as The Twelve. They formed the basis of the earliest leadership in the newly emerging Church as early as Acts 1-3
Then in Acts you get the Council of Apostles, Elders of Jerusalem debating circumcision, admission of Gentiles, Paul’s apostolic legitimacy etc.
And the early instituting of deacons to oversee the distribution of care packages to widows, orphans and other needy Christians early on in Acts implies the creation of organisational structures that alas suggest inaugurating the building of institutions, however organically grown and developed those were in those times.
But these were hardly the heavily bureaucratic institutional and church-governance models that emerged in post-Constantinian times.
I’m not anti-institutional by any means.
I believe creating certain institutions becomes necessary at various times in order to practically carry on the work of Christian mission.
As church historian, Douglas A Sweeney (2006), The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement, Baker: Grand Rapids, p. 53 says: “It is nearly impossible to perpetuate even the loftiest spiritual movements without some planning, organisation, and corporate support”.
We often need to create certain organisational structures, and indeed suitable institutions, to help us organise, resource, develop and facilitate mission in ways which make things practically sustainable as time moves on.
Creating new institutions and structures often becomes a very necessary process for the church to do to undertake effective and seriously ongoing mission work in ways which empower it to continue making transforming inroads within communities.
I think creating relevant institutions and structures are an absolute necessity if we want to make a social difference in mission. But it is the shaping of those `things’ [institutions] to come, which I think is fairly important to consider as members of the post-Christendom church.
So I don’t regard institutions as “necessary evils” or “necessarily evil” as I have heard some of my peers describe them on various occasions over the years.
However, it is observable that many evangelicals are opposed to what Sweeney calls “the steady grind of bureaucracy” implied by the creation of church institutions (p.54). And for some good reasons too!
We’ve all had our fill of corrupt, authoritarian and overly controlling institutions which always seem to block real missional progress due to putting things like unnecessary bureaucratic red-tape in the way due to unwarranted resistance to changes to their existing status quo ways of doing things.
In light of our history with institutions, Sweeney puts it this way: “We [evangelicals] have erred most often, in fact, by failing to take our social structures seriously. As people committed to surmounting social boundaries with the gospel, we often neglect the institutions needed to further kingdom work…Church history abounds with a chronic tension between Spirit and structure, or dynamic spirituality and its static, albeit necessary, structural supports. Some point to a pattern in Christian history in which no sooner are the church and its institutions revitalized than the agents of change seek to conserve their renewal in (new) institutional forms. These forms themselves become petrified, and those dependent on the forms languish in need of revival again. Such history has hardly inspired confidence in the promise of institutions” (ibid).
I have a lengthy work history of working within Church welfare agencies (institutions). One of my privileges has been being involved in a few that grew somewhat organically in response to meeting some localized welfare need within my local community. However, over the course of time, as funding has become scarce, I have observed a process which sometimes looks like this:
1) Begins as a grassroots local church response to some practical need involving a few passionate people
2) Becomes successful due to its innovative missional approach
3) Gets funding support of local church
4) Becomes an `agency’ (institution), with employees, corporate charter, mission statement, buildings etc.
5) Funding diminishes for one reason or another, and seeks secular sponsorship, which inevitably comes with `catches’
6) Waters down its original vision to meet those `catches’ (e.g. demands of `political correctness’, particularly to do with obtaining government funding etc.)
7) Loses its missional independence, credibility, and innovativeness because it can no longer do things like openly share the Gospel if it wants to be politically correct to retain its funding from government or corporate sponsorship, and becomes just like any other secular welfare agency
Sweeney talks about a process of corruption which often occurs regarding Church institutions and occurs from forces within those organizations.
He says, “In attempting to regularize revival, to bottle our leaders’ moral charisma, to coordinate the projects needed to shore up the life of the Spirit, we have built new structures than can preserve, channel, and multiply our energies. Over and over again, however, these structures themselves have become corrupt, disenchanting the movement’s purists and leading to further reformation”(p.54). What then ultimately happens is things ending up in a schism, which in turn results in brand new alternative institutions being formed in a type of counter-cultural response to inaugurate reforms and possibly reflect more contemporary-cultural responses, if I understand what Sweeney says correctly (p.54).
Pharisaic approaches toward change sometimes develop within institutions when they have lost their way.
By that I mean, overly-controlling and legalistic attitudes occurring which block much-needed change/reform in order to preserve the existing status quo ways of doing things for nostalgic and various other reasons.
Institutions are at their most dangerous when they lose sight of the people they were originally intended to serve. It is people they should serve, rather than the other way around.
Unfortunately, all-too-often we have a history of creating institutions which eventually lost sight of their accountability to the humans they were originally designed to serve due to investiture of too much power, authority and control in them.
So if we must develop them, how do we do so in ways so that they don’t become tyrannical power structures which work against the best interests of progressively-shaped mission, but become the adaptive servants of mission and the missionaries – adaptive, flexible, accountable, humane and good facilitators of cutting edge and counter-cultural mission instead of just becoming Pharisaic preservers of the existing status quo set in stone?
Communitas of sinners Rom 3:10
(Just throwing in a few paradoxic ideas which sprung to mind spontaneously as I tried to finish my post).
This whole discussion is very fascinating to me. I think a lot of us would like to know what the sweet spot is. How do you arrive, or how do you stay in that place where structure does not coopt the mission. That sweet spot is going to be different for every context. I think one of the major hurdles to jump over is just being aware of the dynamics within the process of institutionalization and let it be a controlling question we ask ourselves. “Are we movinginto a mentality of self preservation?” This has beena great question for our community to visit every now and then.
That’s a good point, Tim C, I don’t know about anybody else, but for me, “the sweet spot” is a constant posture of prostration before God, asking Who, What, How, When, Where, and Why questions as relevant. In my imagination, I see every Christian (whether they are in a position of eminence, prominence or apparent insignificance) prostrate in their heart before God’s will and ways (Romans 12
style) before opening their mouths or taking any action amongst the people and in the context where God has graced them to be. Sometimes it is appropriate for that internal submission to the Holy Spirit’s leading to be demonstrated physically - on our knees and on our bellies before God so that the wisdom and discernment that can only come from God might infuse our thoughts, feelings and subsequent actions. That all sounds so serious, doesn’t it? So I remind myself to have a good laugh, hold the seriousness of matters lightly, and enjoy the dance of life with my fellow human beings! That being said, I do remember recently reading a PhD paper that somebody wrote on research within the emergent church scene that investigated their ability to remain without stifling institutionalism. I have a hard copy somewhere… If I find it, I’ll post the link. The gist of it was that they were constantly asking questions in response to new situations, instead of relying on fall-back positions to tried and true ways that worked in the past. I think that has something to do with “living systems emergence” that Alan has written about, and helps to keep the balance between the issues that Andrew has raised. I aim to think in terms of finding operational ways that are ‘helpful functional structure’ rather than ‘stifling institutional legislature’.
Lucy J
Having worked for years with the “institutionalized”, and I don’t mean the infirm, I think Alan is really right. The sweet spot has to do with being on the edge of chaos. Once some movement gets to the edge and grows, it is because it has found a fitness peak. Its fitness has the incredible tendency to become institutionalized as the fitness for everyone. Just look at how many “seeker-type” churches want to sell you their package. I think what happens is very easy for all of us, success breeds success and we think we have found the answer. That is when institutionalization and the backing away from charismatic Biblical authority takes place. That is the key to what Alan is saying. It is not that organization is evil. But when organization comes to think its own survival and its own authority is sustaining it, it becomes stifling.
Skating on the edge of chaos demands that one be constantly pushing to the “adjacent possible” position. Organization of the Body of Christ as an organism, not an institution makes that possible. Keeping it there with all the baggage we have is difficult. The adjacent possible is always, the next person, segment of the population or section of the city that is responsive.
One more thought. Institutionalization comes when you stop living in the cyclical nature of life. When you start thinking that everything is linear, it becomes that way. When we keep to natural rhythms seed-growth-nurturing-dying-rebirth you are alive. Alive things don’t need institutions, they need a structure.
Its interesting to read this blog. Anyone notice that this is exactly what Christian Schwarz and NCD has been arguing since 1996 at the latest?
As I’ve read the NCD stuff, it’s more to do with the characteristics of growing churches… I don’t think their focus has been on the need for “new wineskin” forms of Chrisitan community and disciple-making. Can you clarify what you mean in terms of what Schwarz has been arguing? (I’ll admit I haven’t read all his stuff).
In his popular book (Natural Church Development, 1996) and more academic book (Paradigm Shift in the Church, 1999), Schwarz argues against a technocratic or spiritualistic approach to the church. He argues that neither is faithful to Scripture, and the proposes an organic understanding of the church (based on an understanding of the Scriptures). When it comes to structures, one of the eight quality characteristics of the church is FUNCTIONAL structures, which show far greater flexibility to the mission of the church. As such, while many people are aware of the quality characteristics, it seems to me that many have missed the more significant foundations on which they are built.
I read this stuff over 10 years ago and you’re absolutely right Charles… this was before I’d done a “paradigm shift” that “church” doesn’t require a post-Constantinian imagination… thus I’d failed to recognise the deeper implications of the organic models used in NCD. I think I’d better take a second look!
Usher: “I do think the renewal or revitalization movements are our best expressions” -Alan
These are the movements God uses to awaken, to renew and to make Himself known. Yet the association of the institution is that they are somehow part of these movements. They are rarely ever! (This is in essence the inability for our society to differentiate the physical building we call “church” from the verb of “church” which is nonexistent in those outside these movements.)
Institutions actually invalidate such movements via denial they ever existed, squelching them in some sort of competitive spirit & if these two things do not work, they kill anything left from these movements in those who attend via their idiotic liturgies and man-inspired busy-ness they associate with their understanding of church.
Deacon & Usher
deaconandusher.wordpress.com
“Idiotic liturgies” is harsh… I think many of the historical liturgies contain great spiritual wisdom. Sometimes within evangelicalism the idea emerges that if it isn’t spontaneous it isn’t valid, which is an ahistorical view. Based on the writings of the early church fathers, it seems it was the “norm” that early Christian communities read the scriptures and made “liturgical confessions” together. Philippians 2
: 5 – 11 is probably an early hymn of confession, I Corinthians 15
: 3 - 5 and Corinthians 11
: 23 – 26 are examples of transmitted teaching that were probably used as “confessional” material. Christian confessions were memorised and repeated by those preparing for baptism and entry into the Christian community, later evolving into the creeds recognised by the “official” church. I see no need to be “anti-liturgical” on principle… this seems reactionary.
Although the institutional church doesn’t have a spectacular track record in relation to movements, it has found some ways to work with them… for example, the Catholic orders are given freedom to elect their own leaders and follow their own distinctive mission without much interference from Rome. Some parachurch and missionary organisations associated with Protestantism have “movement”characteristics. Alan was involved in the early days of birthing UNOH, a missional order birthed within Churches of Christ, but released from it to do its own thing. (I wonder whether missional orders may continue to be a helpful model for some denominations… even “missional emergent orders”?)
I think that those who are called to emergent expressions of faith need to do their own thing without taking pot-shots at those called to more traditional expressions of church. I just don’t think the emerging missional movement in general is helped by negativity (this can create enemies of potential allies)… and I don’t think it models what the kingdom of God is like. (Colossians 3:15
“as members of one body you were called to peace”) The best critique of the status quo is the practice of the better.
Feel free to “push back” if you think my comments are unfair… I’d be interested to hear more.
Usher: Janet, I wonder if you speak from theory or simply in defense of the institution because you have never ventured outside? Liturgy deserves no defense as the definition is simply:
1. a form of public worship; ritual.
2. a collection of formularies for public worship.
3. a particular arrangement of services.
4. a particular form or type of the Eucharistic service.
5. the service of the Eucharist, esp. this service (Divine Liturgy) in the Eastern Church.
Christ’s entire life was one of spontaneity - not ritual. He condemned the rituals by healing on the Sabbath, throwing traders from the temple and defying the laws of the time.
To defend “a ritual or an order/arrangement” is truly missing the point.
Personal experience: coming from meeting Chrsit during a major movement (the Jesus Movement) and then trusting the “institution” proved to be tragic. Not tragic in that a mistake was made and I should have known better, but tragic that the leaders chose to stifle the Holy Spirit by means of adopting an institutional model. God will not be put in a box.
Adding insult to injury, we moved to another form of institution only to find the same stifling type of behavior. Any who fight the institution are labeled dissenters, disgruntled or dividers. The only ones who stay are those who control or those who have no issue with being controlled. Is it better to be controlled by the institution or by Christ? The first century had no institutions, Jesus had no institution by which to reside, nor did he endorse any. Will I stand on a liturgy and profess to my maker that I “went along with the arrangement of rituals” and thus I should enter the kingdom? Reformed, transformed, converted or condemned, there is no institution in my relationship with Christ. Last time I checked, not one person/being/leader/layman of any institution can do a damn thing for me when it comes to salvation or redemption.
I may be wrong, but apparently you’re missing the whole point of the institution….
Responding to Dean & Usher, I would like to make a few unordered comments.
1. The assessment of Jesus as one who condemned rituals is not correct; he condemned the abuse of the rituals. It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus upheld the Law, which would have included ritual (no festival could be celebrated without the associated ritual); what he did not uphold was the manner in which the religious leaders and others had come to abuse and distort the Law.
2. To argue that the first century had no institutions is also somewhat simplistic. For example, when Paul wrote to the church in Corinth or to Timothy, he seems to have been concerned for what could be regarded as ‘institution’. He certainly seemed quite concerned for order in the church, in the context in which ‘freedom’ appears to have been leading to abuse and the dishonouring of Christ.
3. To suggest that everyone who may appreciate ritual and liturgy will appeal to that as the basis for an entry to the Kingdom is also an insult to many such people. While your assessment of the ultimate significance of institution is correct, you cannot then say that the logical conclusion is to toss out everything that institution and ritual has to offer.
4. With respect to the last sentence, “I may be wrong, but apparently you’re missing the whole point of institution..”; may I respectfully suggest that to use the abuse of institution and ritual as a grounds for discarding it completely is actually to miss the whole point. Yes, institution and ritual must ‘know its place’; but to throw it out completely is non-sensical.
Usher: Charles - only one who has something to defend (institution) could make such a tactful (yet unfounded and democratic) argument. You obviously have a major investment in the institution. Your arguments are very convincing, yet lack any instance of priority of the relationship with Christ. One who defends an institution such as this is to be pitied. For the one or two (all I can muster up) benefits of a liturgical institution such as the virtual ones you defend, there are thousands upon thousands of injustices to the true body of Christ which the institution and those who defend it will someday have to answer for. On your point of discarding the institution, truly devoted followers of Christ who dedicated their entire lives to the task such as Calvin and Luther could not bring reformation to it, what makes you think you can?
To Deacon and Usher
“I have just committed myself to Jesus Christ, what now?”
I don’t know, Charles, but don’t grow up in your culture and travel up to Jerusalem for religious feasts on a regular basis, don’t get baptised in the river Jordan, don’t take your turn in the synagogue to read from the scroll, and whatever you do, don’t go up any hills to pray, (or any contemporary contextualisations of the above)because you might lack spiritual spontenaity!
Sorry, that should have read, spontaneity!
Come now guys, let’s get real. Let’s not be unreasonable, I asked the question to gain a positive understanding of what is being suggested by those guys who are unhappy with institutions. If I cannot expect that, then please let me know. May I rephrase my question: “What would you say to someone who is part of the ‘institutional’ church, and who would say that they are growing spiritually and experiencing vibrant Christianity?”
Do I speak from theory or defence?
My personal “imagination” of church is that where two or three gather in Christ’s name, He is present. Full stop. So I embrace intentional gatherings of Christians as the church, whether these be organic / house church / informal or whether they are expressed in more “traditional” ways. I embrace the idea of liberty of conscience in non-core matters… this includes where Christian people might meet, and the manner in which they like to worship God.
Although I have been involved in a “recognised” church all my life (Baptist, then Church of Christ) I have been involved in working with Christians in a huge range of different contexts. I hope you would not dismiss my reflections outright because I have been involved with a traditional (although not a formal liturgical) expression of church. I don’t regard myself as blind to other possibilities.
It sounds like your involvement with institutional churches has been particularly negative (I’m guessing an evangelical, then a charismatic expression of church.) I’m really sorry that your churches were so unhealthy… it’s not uncommon, sadly.
I don’t have time to pursue this more deeply, but I’d like to note the following (which I may be able to follow up further in a couple of days time)I think this conversation with a lot of nuances to be clarified…
institutionalism = bad… it is a form of religious idolatry
institutions = not intrinsically bad, but can be “fallen”. eg Paul notes that governments are ordained by God… I believe because of human fallenness and foibles, it is better for society overall to have a police force, a justice system, an accountable political system with checks and balances, than to have anarchy. However… these institutions can also do great harm through corruption, sin, abuse of power etc.
organisation… necessary to get most things done!
organisations… necessary to get certain things done efficiently and effectively (eg Christian aid organisations or missionary organisations or training institutions)
Routines = good! Life / organisational rhythms are healthy and necessary for individuals, workplaces, family life, etc. There’s strong research to suggest children brought up in a chaotic environment do not thrive as well as those raised in a more predictable environment. Routines and rituals around meals, bedtime procedures, playtimes etc. help foster a sense the world is a safe place for young children.
Habits… normal for healthy human beings… (of course habits can be good or bad!) We clean our teeth in the morning on “autopilot”… we don’t have to agonise over whether to do this or not. Confronting a constant range of novel choices from scratch is extremely stressful… healthy habits make life manageable. (Of course… bad habits can destroy a life)
Rigidity and legalism = bad. Healthy families hold the tension of some kind of healthy life rhythm with the ability to be flexible.
Good ritual… can be very therapeutic for people. A funeral service can be an important step in a grieving process. A wedding service can cement the importance of the marriage covenant, more so than simply moving in together. A “bedtime ritual” can help children settle at night. A family ritual can cement the relationship between family members. A pattern of personal prayer or meditation at a certain time of day may be a helpful spiritual discipline that assists personal and spiritual growth.
Bad ritual… poorly understood religious ritual can breed fear, legalism, and “magic” thinking (ie “If I do this then God will be happy and things will go well for me… if I don’t do this God will be angry and things will go badly for me”).
Spontaneity can be very good! It allows prompt responsiveness to the Holy Spirit, flexibility in responding to circumstances, sincerity, quick adaptation to change…
Spontaneity can be terrible, without wisdom and maturity to hold it in check. A toddler is both delightful and dangerous. An adult who is a “toddler on the inside” can be destructive through rage… they may be impulsively violent… they may be utterly irresponsible financially… they may be damaging to others emotionally. Wisdom involves knowing when to be spontaneous, and when to resist an impulse.
I’ll write more later, but I invite your responses and reflections.
Every society uses rituals, whether it is The Jesus People movement or the highest, high Church of England etc.
We are not 100% random. Spontaneity isn’t rampant randomness, but occurs from out of form and structure.
As Janet illustrates, there are appropriate times and ways to use ritual and liturgy, especially in terms of rite of passage situations to help people manage life’s threshhold experiences.
Where ritual and liturgy become problematic is when they become “institutionalised” as the way it must be done, how it must be said, and in no other way for ever and ever more amen. I.E. Like A Pharisaic Legal Demand That It Has To Be Done This Way And In No Other.
It could be said that Gen 1
and The Lords Prayer, many Psalms, Proverbs and other texts were both poetic and liturgical in form.
It is theologically naive to think they are not.
But even so, the first time they were spoken out they were not technically liturgy since they hadn’t been repeated as yet then. Second time spoken, maybe..
I usually don’t like boring liturgies read out of dusty old prayer books in the King’s (King James’ “Thee, Thy, Thus”) language…..culturally inappropriate for today unless practising for a Shakespearian Play…anymore than most other people.
But creative use of liturgy, especially if newly created for some special occasion can be very worthwhile.
For instance, my best mate who was going to die held a pre-death wake….in which I wrote a few ballads about his drinking habits with his help (he was an alcoholic and a Christian ) to acknowledge it as part of who he was, as well as about his passionate service using his handy-man skills to help so many poor people for free as a socially conscious servant volunteer of the needy. We used candles which we lit and joined together on a large plate with his to signify our love for him, our valuing of him as our friend. The whole planning of this with him was a very healing rite of passage (ritual) for him, which helped him to share stuff with people he needed to share with them, and helped his friends also come to terms with their mate’s passing on into a new type of journey with God. Let me tell you that just recalling this and writing about my best mate, Russell was his name, dying some years ago has provoked strong feelings, memories etc of him reminded to me by writing about a ritual event …Very good for the soul.
There are both good and bad rituals, just as Janet illustrated so well in her post.
Rituals and liturgy can be abused to manipulate and control, to institutionalise and restrict freedom.
But good rituals can be, well, good. Enough has been said about it already.
But in terms of good rituals being lost to Jesus’ people I need to say that to lose rituals is to lose the way. Because if we don’t have good rituals to help people to face life’s many threshold change exigencies, then what we will get is bad ones in their place which are actually very detrimental to civility within the wider community. For example, the rites of passage/rituals used with youth by fascist, communist and Nazi regimes to institutionalise violence, racism and mass murder in the name of a political/religion. Perhaps had the church within those communities countered back with boldly prophetic preaching and culturally relevant alternative rites of passage/rituals it might have been a totally different outcome in history.
Create counter-cultural rituals and liturgies to aptly fit the occasion…but jettison those which simply don’t work or which just aren’t socially relevant.
Rituals, if properly used, can be utilised to free spontaneity. If not, then they have not done their job properly. For their role is to provide some structure and context, but not to bind and restrict freedom of expression.
If as Larry Norman used to say: “Why should we let the devil have all the good music?” Then, why should we also let the devil have all the good rituals and liturgies? We need to create and use culturally appropriate rituals and liturgies at times. But just like anything else, we need to be Spirit led and flexible, and counter-cultural in right-attitudedness about it as well by emulating Jesus’ example in the Gospels.
“I usually don’t like boring liturgies read out of dusty old prayer books in the King’s (King James’ “Thee, Thy, Thus”) language…..culturally inappropriate for today unless practising for a Shakespearian Play…anymore than most other people.”
Hey Andrew, they’re not really my thing either. But I was interested to hear recently that the Church of England has started to grow after about 80 years of decline, and one of the sources of growth is… wait for it… Cathedral services. Yep, ancient prayer book, ancient organ, ancient building, centuries old musical scores and all.
I’d speculate that part of this is around the interest in ancient rituals and “ancient spiritualities”… Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, etc… a hunger for something deep and abiding in a world of rapid change.
Another really interesting phenomenon is the “new monastics” (google it!)… a movement which shares much in common with the missional emerging movement, but has a much stronger emphasis on ancient spiritual disciplines. I personally believe both movements are genuine movements of the Spirit of God. Alan was involved with the earliest birth of UNOH, an Australian expression of a much broader movement.
My sense is that we find ourselves in a time where the mission of God is best served by diversity. I think there are some people whose heritage (or innate temperament) means their spiritual journey is best nurtured in something that is a more or less conventional/traditional expression of “church”. The fragmentation/tribalisation of society means there are many more people best reached by “incarnational/organic” expressions of Christian community. There are those who hunger for a more contemplative faith experience who will be drawn to the new (or even the older) monastic movements.
Arguing over who is right and who is wrong in their faith expression seems a dead end street to me… or worse… something that will grieve God’s Spirit. How those involved in diverse expressions of Christ’s body can cooperate to achieve God’s mission in the world seems a much better question.
Good points there Janet.
Am reminded of the resurging interest in Celtic expressions of Christian spirituality, Mars Hill (and in Canberra) prayer labyrinths, Christian mosh pits - which all reflect both the ancient and the contemporary liturgical arts into today’s spirituality. Fairly tribal connotations too.
Not everything will suit everybody’s needs or tastes etc.
Humans are very diverse in culture and so diversity is the key.
Spiritual direction is another example of an ancient monastic practice that is becoming increasingly accepted and utilized even within evangelical circles.
We live in complex times that call for both/and, rather than either/or thinking IMO.
I’m with Janet on the point about diversity.
Spiritual Direction (under various less intimidating names) is certainly a growing area of interest ecumenically - I trained along with people from several denominations including another Salvationist. We are working slowly and steadily toward training people locally here, beginning with a first year course on prayer which starts next month. Provided the venue is available on the dates we need, we will be offering the course using the local Salvation Army church as a venue. A discipleship/formation group will hopefully run parallel starting some time next year, the integration of the two expressing our understanding that those being discipled also need to be accompanied one-to-one.
I am aware of the paradox of trying to run a course, effectively a programme, in order to encourage and empower people to work fluidly and organically! But I keep learning again and again I have to start where people are, not where I want them to be. In a context where lay people are not used to having an opportunities for service and have not been encouraged to have confidence in finding and developing their own ministry quite a lot of support is needed in the early stages. It then becomes a process of letting go, while they and their surrounding church culture evolve and adapt. (That’s the plan, anyway!)