The Problem of institutions (part II)
Perhaps a further exploration of what is meant by institutionalism is needed here: Institutions are organizations initially set up in order to fill a necessary religious and social function and to provide some sort of structural support for whatever that function requires. In many ways they fulfill the very purpose of structure; organization is needed if we seek to act collectively for common cause. And all movements start this way, but in the initial stages structure exists solely to support the grassroots. The problem happens when the newly instituted structures move beyond being simply structural support and become a governing body of sorts—structure becomes centralized governance. So religious institutionalism happens when in the name of some convenience we set up a system to do what we must do ourselves so that over time the structures we create to do this take on a life of their own. A classic example is when churches outsource education to external organizations. Initially these training organizations exist to fully serve the grassroots. However, over time they increase in authority and eventually becoming ordaining bodies whose imprimatur is needed in order to minister. As the provider of degrees, they become increasingly more accountable to the government bodies than they do to the mission of the church. But the net result for the local community is that not only do they become dependent on an increasingly powerful and cloistered institution, they also lose the ancient art of discipling and educating for life in the local setting. The local church as a learning and theologizing community is degraded as a result.
But something else begins to happen: as we outsource to the structure what is essential to the function there is a transfer of responsibility and power/authority to the newly established centralized body. In this situation they inevitably become the locus of power which uses some of that power to sanction behaviors of its members that are out of keeping with the institution. Instead of serving the mission, institutions begin to have a life of their own, and they can become blockers not ‘blessers.’ One of the most tragic examples of the conformist impulse in institutions was seen in the effective hobbling of the remarkable organic Celtic Mission by the more centralist Roman Catholic Church in Britain in that fateful meeting at the Abbey of Whitby in 664. The Celtic movement was never the same again. But centralized coercion and conformity surely climaxed in the Inquisition (est. 1231) which burned and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of compliance and control.
The tragedy these examples serve to highlight is that when power is entrenched in the religious institution it creates a dangerous culture of restraint. No one intends it; it just appears to be a part of our fallen condition—genuine gospel freedom it seems, is very difficult to maintain over the long haul and one cannot bind it down in well meaning structures. But when organizations enshrine this culture of restraint, they are extremely hard to change. As far I am aware, no historical denomination has ever been able to fully recover its earlier, more fluid and dynamic, movement ethos again. That’s why it is the network structure, where power and responsibility is diffused throughout the organization and not concentrated at the center, that more approximates our real nature and calling as the Body of Christ. A network structure thus guards us against the dangerous creep of religious institutionalism.
And so it should be no surprise to us that genuine Jesus movements operate are essentially networks. Curtis Sergeant, an expert on the Chinese underground church, notes that in regard to the issue of control and growth that
In regard to church-planting patterns, external human control over the new converts and churches is inversely proportional to the potential growth and rate of growth in terms of both maturity and size. If a church planter or agency or denomination or other entity seeks to exercise authority to a great extent, then the new church and its members will tend to be dependent and not take responsibility for their own growth or for reaching others. Every time you are tempted to micro-manage, remember this principle.
As Church Planting Movements researcher David Garrison says that in all truly vigorous Jesus movements leadership authority is decentralized…
Denominations and church structures that impose a hierarchy of authority or require bureaucratic decision-making are ill-suited to handle the dynamism of a Church Planting Movement. It is important that every cell or house church leader has all the authority required to do whatever needs to be done in terms of evangelism, ministry and new church planting without seeking approval from a church hierarchy.
Both these men are reflecting what that great missionary prophet Roland Allen said in the early parts of the 20th century when he noted that “we instinctively think of something which we cannot control as tending to disorder.” But he suggests that there is another way that lies beyond control—what he calls the spontaneous expansion of the church.
By spontaneous expansion I mean something which we cannot control. And if we cannot control it, we ought, as I think, to rejoice that we cannot control it. For if we cannot control it, it is because it is too great, not because it is too small for us. The great things of God are [always] beyond ‘our control. Therein lies a vast hope.”
To illustrate this with a bit of living irony, Michael Frost, a friend of mine was recently privy to a meeting with three Chinese leaders from the underground church who were smuggled out to a group of Western leaders about issues they were facing. When they were asked what wanted prayer for they asked for three things: Whilst acknowledging that the government has become more lenient, they were still not allowed to gather in groups of more than fifteen people and that when they grew beyond that they had to split and start a new church. Could the westerners please pray for that? The second issue they asked for prayer for was that they were not allowed church buildings and were thus forced to meet in homes, cafes, karaoke bars, and social clubs. Could the westerners please pray for that as well? The next thing they felt they needed a breakthrough with was that they were forbidden to develop separate organizations where they could collectively train leaders; they were forced to train leaders in the local church. Michael, himself a vice-president of a seminary, says in all good conscience that he simply could not pray for them in this way because he and the group gathered there realized that in many ways the Communist state was forcing the church to remain more true to themselves. Philip Yancy likewise reports on his life-changing trip to China. He says “Before going to China I met with one of the missionaries who had been expelled in 1950. ‘We felt so sorry for the church we left behind,’ he said. ‘They had no one to teach them, no printing presses, no seminaries, no one to run their clinics and orphanages. No resources, really, except the Holy Spirit.’” Yancy wryly concludes “It appears the Holy Spirit is doing just fine.”
These stories highlight how reliance on buildings and external institutions can seriously distort our experience of God, our understanding of church, and our experience of Apostolic Genius. History has amply shown us that we are actually at our very best when we have very little of these.
. The main issue at the synod was ostensibly to set the correct date for celebrating Easter and to address the issue of the hairstyle of the monks (called a tonsure..)The Roman party thought the Celtic calculation, which differed from their own by only a few days and the different form of tonsure was tantamount to heresy. It was over these trivia that the Roman party was able to tame the most remarkable missionary movement in Western history. See for instance, Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe (New York, Anchor, 1995.)
Comments
17 Responses to “The Problem of institutions (part II)”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
the reason for god
- Amanda said: Wow, looks like an... the last thing to convert…is the wallet
- Richard Clarke said: The version I heard had...
- Andrew Park said: Money on a different...
- Andrew said: Relates directly to...
- Dan Lowe said: You know, if this was a...
- Amanda said: hehe, it's funny because...
- Lucy J said: Kinda reminds me of a...
- Eric said: The story goes that... the role of theology in faith
- Ed Magee said: thanks Janet, intersting...
- Janet said: "Are people looking for...
I find some irony in that the fastest growing denominations in Australia (Pentecostals) have been embracing a rather scary theology of “covering”… the “pastor” needs to “cover” the decisions of members of the church, who need to submit in everything.
This is more or less strong depending on the church (and the pastor)… but I fear this will stifle those denominations who are most passionate about being led by the Holy Spirit into mission (and I fear it’s already doing so). At worst it leads to spiritual abuse… at best this theology disempowers ordinary believers.
Alas…
Hi Janet, in that move they are sowing the seeds of their future decline.
It will come home to roost, and they will find themselves having only acquired a ‘certain type’ of follower, or followers at a certain stage on their journey, and it won’t help the future of the church. They will have to deal with it eventually.
As they say, the only lesson to be learned from history is that people don’t learn from it?
Alan, I see the grip of institutions collapsing all around me in the church down here in Cornwall. Lay people can access theological training and ministry training on line, and go out plant a church. There is no limit to what can be done through the grace of God. At the same time, the denominations are running out of money, can’t even pay the bills on their buildings, and their congregations are dwindling. Fewer and fewer ministers get salaries as congregations fall beneath critical size. History is happening. It is scary to some, but encouraging to others. We have to trust that God will guide. I’m encouraged personally by the number of ordinary people I come across who have grasped the importance of discipleship and learning how to make disciples.
Well, I hope for reform (and hope to be shown I’m wrong)… but I do enough interdenominational stuff to be nervous about this.
You don’t need to be in one of the “historic” denominations to observe power becoming unhealthily concentrated, rather than constantly released to all of God’s people.
Joe Noland, a retired Commissioner in the Salvation Army posted this link on his blog a few weeks ago - what it says about power made me stop and think, I’m still chewing it over. What the clergy dominated churches (and their structures) are doing , is not as simple as ‘disempowering’. The whole thing is more complex than that. Structure and authority are only part of the picture. http://www.leadersdirect.com/empowerlead.html
I think Alan’s point hits the spot here in that institutionalised churches give us a distorted idea of the church. But it is more subtle also than that. (needs more coffee…. lol)
It’s a good summary Eleanor.
My comment really relates to this point: “Empowerment means giving people the authority to decide.” The opposite end of the spectrum is the “covering” churches who say their people should not decide anything without consulting with, and getting permission from their leaders. This obviously finds its most extreme form in cults, but I’ve encountered this thinking recently in a couple of Pentecostal churches I’ve dealt with… I can only hope this is the exception not the rule.
I participated in an international panel of young United Methodist church leaders in April. I was hopeful and eager to learn from folks who I thought would have a less institutional understanding of church. Unfortunately, we had already sold them on the institutional model and our understanding of success. As they gave their presentations and highlighted their goals, it was (similar to Frost’s experience)all about getting on the governments lists of favored groups, buying property, and building buildings.
Once again, Alan, thanks for putting virtual paper and cyber-ink to my story! And yes, I concur with the other bloggers regarding the worrying propensity towards cultish control evident amongst particular sectors of the body of Christ. My husband and I have had several interesting discussions on the topic of the longevity of the mega-church/satellites trend. I have participated in a networking ministry that narrowly escaped petrification. Thank the Lord there were, in the leadership, several passionate and prayerful champions of the decentralisation of power who steered the organisation/movement into the new millennium and beyond with creative vision and foresight. A lot of that had to do with getting the disparate power-heads into dialogue and including all who would participate involved in the transition.
Unfortunately the same can’t be said for a particular local church group which ostracised me out because I was not attuned to “the covering” theory. They actually used the image of “umbrellas” to educate the young and impressionable into that doctrine. Jesus at the top, whose umbrella covered the pastor whose umbrella covered the husband whose umbrella covered the wife whose umbrella covered the children. My daughter didn’t appreciate that although she was older than her brother that she was at the bottom of the umbrella pyramid and told them so… we left not long after and I have never forgotten the study I did on the error of the Nicolaitans which I have recently been taking another look at in relation to a situation I am facing in another local church of a non-pentecostal denomination. I’m very interested in whether our intercessions will be used to achieve the reform we are hoping for.
Lucy J
My feeling on that is one of relief that in England (and Cornwall today) at least most of us know what to use umbrellas for!
Blessings
Anyone who taught such nonsense would tempt me to use the said umbrella in a manner that would be inappropriate to describe on a Christian blog.
Of course, in real life I would turn the other cheek in a Christ-like manner…
(Thought I’d better note this in case my new boss is reading this blog. Hi Martin!)
Hello, All!
Great post, Alan. Thank again for making the foggy a bit clearer.
I am getting a small case of the heebie-jeebies over this “covering” and “umbrella” stuff. Back in the 70s (and it is still around
), a man named Bill Gothard put this together in a seminar he took all around the USA called “Basic Youth Conflicts”…and he lost me with the whole “umbrella” thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gothard
Was he in his “anti-cabbage patch dolls” phase when you heard him?
The best example of institutionalized Christianity is the United Methodist Church, it is rapidly losing members in the USA to other more “vibrant” denominations mostly “non-denominational, evangelical, contemporary” churches. The fact that the Church simply does nothing to address the problem is ridiculous. I as a United Methodist am even thinking of abandoning the Church altogether. :[
Hey Aurelio, as a United Methodist pastor I definitely share your frustrations…but I also see glimmers of hope. Usually on the way home from “Annual Conference” I too have the “are you sure you want me to stay UM?” conversation with God, but I feel I’m where I’m supposed to be.
It might encourage you to know that in our district we are going to launch a missional leadership development process patterned after the Forge process (founded by Alan and his mates in Australia). I think doors are beginning to open. I also think that, in spite of all the complaining we do as pastors and lay leaders, there is plenty of opportunity and flexibility within our system to move missional. It’s just a long term process and you can’t expect a system that’s being challenged to thank you for it.
Yeah I understand how hard it is to change something as big as the United Methodist Church rapidly enough to address its problems.
Perhaps my frustration stems from the lack of younger people in my district who seem to actually care about the Church and the world instead of only advancing the denomination.
FYI i’m actually going into the ordained ministry of the UMC maybe someday I’ll be able to change the Church from the inside out. :]]
I’m glad! We need lots more like you!!
His, don woolley
http://www.jesustribe.org
jesustribe at comcast.net
Wow I just visited your website itd be great to have something like that in my town. I’m going to ask around to see if there are any type of meetings like that here or maybe talk to others about starting one!