The Myth of the Institution-less Church
2 Mar 2009
These days there seems to be a deep suspicion of all organisations, and in particular any structure, hierarchy and a basic resistance to anything that is an ‘institution’. And I for one, am convinced that institutions are the enemy of good practice (if I may paraphrase Alasdair MacIntyre badly).
By this, I mean that any institution that people form in order to deliver good practice will always wrestle with it becoming so bureaucratic and concerned for itself that it undermines the very thing it seeks to deliver in the first place.
We see this today with hospitals. Places dedicated to providing medical care to human beings can become so caught up in politics and management conflicts that the medical care they are supposed to provide becomes undermined and, in many cases, people suffer. We see the same with the church. The organisation of the church to facilitate the incarnation of the gospel quickly becomes an obstacle to the very nature and purpose of the church in the first place, and people are harmed more than helped.
Often, in reaction, we think that, in having no programmes, no hierarchy, the removal of the institution will solve the problem. After all, if the institution is getting in the way of the purpose, get rid of the institution. This response is increasingly ingrained in us, such that even using the word ‘institution’ is anathema to those seeking new ways of doing and being church. But I think how ever well intentioned, this approach is naive and inadequate to the task of being Church.
What we need is not the absence of institutions, but an articulate institutional imagination, something more than the incapacity of being ‘anti-institutional’. For if we get rid of hospitals, we might remove the problems they produce as institutions, but with it we also remove the provision of medical care from all those who had access to it before, or we restrict it to only a few who are in proximity to those who can provide it with no institutional support, or those who know how to provide to themselves. Which is what much of the ‘institution-less’ church has come to look like.
The question is not whether you can avoid being an institution; the question is what kind of institution can we imagine that will support the purposes of who and what we are trying to bring to others?
Tagged: ecclesiology
45 comments
Trackback
Comment by Thomas Ingram
6.05 am on 2 Mar 2009
Good word Jason. As many of us, I have been struggling with this issue for a bit. The hospital analogy is a good one. If my path is any indication, once we reach the point in church life where we can no longer stand the disconnect between what we feel the calling of the church currently appears to be as compared to what it should be, we naturally seem to want to disassociate ourselves with the sickly body. But, after a bit, we seem to long for the body again. We are built for relationship.
Maybe we need to be less of an institution and more like something that institutes change. Institution seems to imply continuation of something, but an institute seems more creative.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
7.53 am on 2 Mar 2009
I guess I’m trying to unmask the ‘I’m into Jesus but not religion/church’, where we hold beliefs in private and never practice them with others, thinking we are doing something better and more noble, when we are practicing a the church of consumer anomy.
We might stop using the word institute, but we still form them, even if they are an institute for one.
I like your focus on change. I mentioned good practice, that has to be the focus of what ever structure we form.
Reply to this comment
Comment by fernando
6.36 am on 2 Mar 2009
Great set of thoughts. I agree that being instiutionless for the sake of it is pretty pointless.
But, let suggest a line if questioning. Insititions arise from common needs; hopsitals as a way to address the cost of providing healthcare, schools as way to tackle the collective issue of education and so on. We accept and invest in these because they provide with services we could not provide for ourselves as individuals. I can never afford my own private hospital and even if I could afford a full time tutor for my daugher, that would not replace the experiences and advantages of a school.
But, what collective need does church meet? This is a problem I’ve been pondering a lot lately in our current context.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
7.56 am on 2 Mar 2009
If Church serves no need, then we don’t need it.
But if the human condition is such that people need to exchange their basis of reality (be that consumer teleologies and ontologies), for one found in Jesus, and be helped in practicing that reality, being shaped and formed, because it has eternal consequences that start now.
What kind of church enables people to enter into that reality, and be formed with others in it transforming our world?
Reply to this comment
Comment by fernando
11.43 am on 3 Mar 2009
I really like your idea of a faith that seeks to unmask the current “reality” and face the ultimate REALity. That’s a very Hartt-ian concept.
But, do we need “church” for that? Isn’t that more a soul competency thing that can be part of faith without church. Certainly, that’s the way it feels to me. Church unmasking reality has played almost no role in my experience of church this decade.
Reply to this comment
Pingback by institution-less church « postmission
8.36 am on 2 Mar 2009
[...] There’s an excellent article on this at Deep Church. Take time to read the comments. I’d be interested in your thoughts here as well. [...]
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ryan
8.50 am on 2 Mar 2009
Great post Jason – you know, this is reminiscent of something we once talked about regarding sociological responses to theological issues – i.e. often today we think we need to change the institution and really what we may need is better theology. Plus, I do think it’s inevitable that where you have a church, you have some kind of institution. I guess for me the institution is only helpful in so far as it serves the vision of the church (not unlike a building). The problem I see is that the institution over time creates a sense of inertia focused on maintaining itself regardless of whether it’s ceased to serve that original vision. I think the institution must build within itself mechanisms for reflection and adaptation – how do you have a “learning” institution (church) that can adapt? I seem to remember Gordon Cosby talking about this as a key to the staying power of Church of the Savior (Saviour to you!).
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
9.10 am on 2 Mar 2009
Hi Ryan, what are you up to in Seattle these days?
I’m on the page with you mate.
Big question I’m asking is not to preserve existing churches, caught up in providing goods and services for Christians, but how so many new kinds of private God space, post-church, Church, are more about the formation of people for consumer and secular ends.
And within this, the myth that being being anti-church makes you different from the system, when you might have been co-opted further by the system, which is the nature of consumerism and secularism.
There is no religionless and churchless faith (no matter how much people dislike those two words)….it’s a consumer myth, that leads to anomic faith.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Sylvia
5.03 pm on 18 Apr 2009
In reference to your remark – “the institution is only helpful in so far as it serves the vision of the church”, I think of Jesus’ words that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. “Church” is intended to foster relationship with God (and our fellowman); when this purpose is thwarted, “church” is not functioning as it was meant to function. The solution is not to dispense with “church”, which was Divinely set up, but to determine where we have erred in our manifestation of His purposes.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Barry
1.54 am on 19 Apr 2009
“Divinely set up”?
If you mean a community or a people of faith then I would agree. If you are implying some kind of structured organization or meeting I have to disagree.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Sylvia
1.26 pm on 19 Apr 2009
May I ask, how can you have a “community or a people of faith” without some kind of gathering or meeting taking place? Jesus said he would build his church; this is what I meant by “Divinely set up”. It is indeed comprised of all his followers for all time, those now deceased, the living, and those yet to be born. I think the degree of formality that a given number of followers choose to establish is their personal decision, hopefully, a decision guided by the Holy Spirit and the Word – relevant to their unique situation. The point still is that their “association” is for their benefit; they are not in the “association” (whatever it may look like) to keep the the latter going. One of the problems that I see is the establishment of large “church plants” – which require the dedication of many people and lots of money just to maintain the facility, as if it were “the church”. The people are sacrificed for the institution/facility/organization, often to their hurt. How many marriages and homes suffer because the husband or wife is caught up in the welfare of “the church” to the neglect of their home? I, too, am still seeking answers.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Barry
2.06 pm on 25 Apr 2009
We seem to be in agreement. I hate using the word ‘church’, as it has come to take on so much baggage that is not what ekklēsia means. Sure the ekklēsia will meet and have gatherings, as a matter of fact, it could be said that a group of individual Christians who never come together in community are not the ekklēsia. Ekklēsia holds within it an understanding of gathering together.
My belief is that the ekklēsia gathering need not, and possibly should not be institutionally structured. It is more organic and simple. the ‘Institutionally structured’ church requires effort to be put into the structure by many people and requires a top down leadership structure not unlike the gentiles (Luke 22:25) The result is an exoskeleton structure that will remain even if the Spirit leaves.
Jesus said that were two or three are gathered… Assembling together is all about relationship. If an institutional ‘church’ is the ekklēsia it is because of the relationships and is despite of the structure.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Sylvia
6.29 pm on 25 Apr 2009
Well said, Barry. “organic and simple”. But the question remains: how to achieve it. To live like Jesus, “going around doing good”, meeting with other disciples to encourage and bless one another…..could we really do it? Can we get along without recognition and can we accept possible ostracism, if we follow such a course? I believe that many people could not or would not benefit, imbued as they are with contemporary theology. No easy answers here in my world.
Comment by Bill Lollar
10.35 pm on 25 Apr 2009
Barry, your comments regarding the “ekklesia” are THE best summary of NT Christianity that I’ve ever read. No kidding! Thanks for putting it so simply and distilling the essence of what it means for us who are members of Christ’s body. Why we mistakenly think WE should take on the craftsmanship that Jesus claimed as His own, I don’t know.
Comment by Barry
3.49 am on 2 May 2009
Sylvia,
Jesus never said it would be easy! Just that he would always be there for us.
Bill,
Thank you
Reply here
Comment by James Prescott
9.23 am on 2 Mar 2009
Interesting point.
I think the church needs to have organisational structure for sure. It needs to promote good practice and be run professionally as an organisation in order to maximise its impact.
Its when this is done to the extent that it hinders, rather than supports, the work of the church community that it becomes ‘insitutionalised’, existing for its own benefit rather than the benefit of the people it was created to support.
I think the church needs to be an institution in terms of how it is run, but not to the extent, where like a lot of denominations it starts to exist and make decisions as much for its own benefit as the benefit of the kingdom.
So run it and organise it professionally with good practice, but don’t ever lose sight of the real goal, of what its all about, and don’t be afraid to make bold decisions for the sake of preserving the status quo.
I think there is a distinction between ‘the establishment’ or ‘the institution’ and ‘an institution’ or ‘an organisation’.
That is my fear for the church, that it gets so carried away with preserving the status quo and preserving itself, it loses the radical, revolutionary and counter-cultural heart of its message.
Great post Jase, with a lot to ponder.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
9.30 am on 2 Mar 2009
Hi James, I’m with you on the need for church to be radical and revolutionary. What I’m getting at this piece is not a call for support of any ‘preserving’ institution, just the myth that thinking we can have no structure and think we have done anything good at all.
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Just Practicing | disruptive grace
9.33 am on 2 Mar 2009
[...] * – of course that statement also poses the question in ways isn’t it my church… this line of though continues at: deep church This entry was posted on Thursday, February 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am and is filed under About this, [...]
Reply to this comment
Comment by James Prescott
9.34 am on 2 Mar 2009
Jason,
Yes, I understood what you were getting at I think. I just wanted to clarify the distinction really, becuase I’ve always felt there’s a danger if we use the word ‘insitution’ in relation to church it can send people running for the hills. The truth however is that in the proper sense, as you describe it very well, it can be a good thing to have structure and organisation.
Thanks for the feedback.
J.
Reply to this comment
Comment by marc
9.51 am on 2 Mar 2009
Is ‘the church’ the same as ‘the institution’?
Without the teaching of the church would we be left with any direction on the teachings within the bible?
After all do we not understand scripture but in the light of the teaching of the Church, the bride of Christ? without it we would not have the basis of our christian faith like the Doctrine of the Trinity.
‘The institution’ is in my opinion that that could be seen as running the church.
Certainly the Roman Catholic recognises itself as such and reformed itself with the implementing of Vatican II, the Church of England again I believe understands itself as an institution and continually tries to reform itself which can be a credit to itself but also can be a thorn in it’s own side and could possibly bring upon it’s own demise.
So the church and the institution, one and the same or different and distinct…I think the line is blurred.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Phil Barnard
9.52 am on 2 Mar 2009
Hi Jason
First time poster here!
“The question is not whether you can avoid being an institution; the question is what kind of institution can we imagine that will support the purposes of who and what we are trying to bring to others?”
This is good point of view. In fact, I’d say that it is human nature to institutionalise. It’s pointless to think otherwise. The sad fact of church history is that whenever there has been a historic “move of God” or perhaps a radical separatism, that initiative (human or divine) is then enshrined in institutional practice (see: Methodism, Pentecostalism, Toronto etc) and hence becomes “traditional”.
The trick is constantly being willing to hold onto “forms of church life” lightly and have a heart of sacrifice with the needs of those outside the church foremost in our minds. That’s extremely hard to do even if the Kingdom requires it of us.
As the other poster, James, points out “I think the church needs to be an institution in terms of how it is run, but not to the extent, where like a lot of denominations it starts to exist and make decisions as much for its own benefit as the benefit of the kingdom.” He’s absolutely correct – but given historical precendent – we’re up against it.
Good to see you the other day….
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
9.55 am on 2 Mar 2009
Hi Phil, great to hear from you.
I’m with james, it’s why I started saying institutions are the enemy of good practice, we should always be suspicious of them.
Just as I am now equally suspicious of the ‘we have no programmes, structures, leaders’ response that is no real response at all.
Being involved in something and critical of it too is hard task, but one we all need to pursue as you outline mate.
Jase
Reply to this comment
Comment by Bill Lollar
12.58 pm on 2 Mar 2009
Hi, Jason! I’m a new reader of your blog, which means that my understanding of your background and philosophy of ministry is extremely limited.
Is it really possible for those of us with a vested interest in maintaining the institutional church (i.e., our salaries, benefits, and pensions are derived from it) to imagine Christianity in its natural habitat? It would be like a zookeeper trying to embrace the philosophy that all zoo animals belong in the wild. It would not be good for his career, to say the least. In spite of all the eloquent arguments a zookeeper might muster regarding the social, cultural, and educational value of the zoo industry, it would be unconvincing to those who are strong animal rights activists.
Jesus never authorized us to build an institution, even if we called it “His Church,” because He has reserved the building of that living organism to Himself. As noble as our intentions might be, I’m not sure we have the right to organize and institutionalize His body, even if ensure that it has an “articulate institutional imagination.”
Rather than say to advocates of the post-congregational model, “this approach is naive and inadequate to the task of being Church” why not retrain ourselves to imagine how glorious the Church Unleashed might be compared to the organization you’ve so accurately described as often being an obstacle to the purposes of God’s kingdom and harmful to those within it?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
1.18 pm on 2 Mar 2009
Hi Bill great to hear from you
Can those of us within the church really critique from the inside? We can but try, and many of invest all we have for that end, and not to just maintain our interests. Although I’m sure we are blinded by our involvement in many ways, as does not being involved close our eyes from seeing too.
I am not arguing to careers, jobs, roles, and institutions perse. Please hear me, instutions are the enemy of good practice. But there is no such thing as an institutional church.
You might define institutions as inherently bad, in which case use other words, structure, organisation, habitat. What I’m trying to get at, is the fallacy of the axiomatic that if we get rid of structures, programs, practices, organising, something better takes place, when often something as bad takes shape.
Now taking the Zoo analogy, it shows us that a Zoo produces a certain kind of way life for animals very different from the wild. But does it immediately relate to church? Should churches produce christians who are like animals in the wild?
That can sound like something more natural and organic, but it also begs the question is the church about living like animals in the wild. Even in the widl we intervene to help animals with structure and programmes and practices.
The body of Jesus is organisaed, the NT is immediatey full of people organising their lives around Jesus together, in worship, families and work, with lots of structure. Jesus organised his ministry around 12 disciples.
I do think the post-organisational church is a myth. It might have wonderful dreams about what church should be, and how it is not being that. But to turn a dream into reality you need to do something with others, or it remains a dream.
we do need to re-train ourselve, into ways, patterns, habitats of conscious practice and formation of Christian identity and mission, around the vision of Jesus.
And that takes a lot of planning, and working together.
Again I am not arguing for congregational church, and the status quo.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Gabriel (G²)
9.31 pm on 29 Apr 2009
Many thanks for sharing your comment—as it has indeed been one of the things that has troubled me for years regarding the ZOO analogy and the reality of what occurs for many when it seems there’s the desire to be wild/organic and yet the reality that for many who did so, they went extict due to a myriad of factors which the Zoon realized were a threat, hence why it is in existence to protect others. Same with the institutional church….
Reply to this comment
Comment by george hemingway
4.17 pm on 2 Mar 2009
Some level of institutional structure was implicit in the very beginnings of the post-resurrection Church. First we see the adoption or keeping of some of the synagogue rites and prayer cycle structures from the pre-resurrection church of the Israelites (evidenced in the Synaxis and Canon of the weekly Eucharistic Rites). Second, we see that Paul felt that unity with the Jerusalem Council was absolutely essential, when he addressed the issues surrounding conversion of the Gentiles and the taking up of the Collection in relief of Jerusalem. The author of the Johannine writings saw some sort of common cause with other emergent Cristian communities than his own. I’m sure you all can come up with lots of other examples.
The point is that the Unity and Apostolicity of the Church require some level of institutional organization, even if only the keeping of the mailing lists
; Unity for formation of disciples and Apostolicity for the sake of the Mission of God. The Holiness of the Church precedes both, while the Universality of the Church is the vision of the Kingdom now, which anticipates the Kingdom to come.
Just a few thoughts as I drink my morning coffee. Good conversation! Thanks!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
4.56 pm on 2 Mar 2009
Hi George great to hear from you. Your comments remind me of something similar Ben Witherington pointed out when critiquing Frank Viola:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/09/frank-violas-reimagining-church-part.html
Some of the searches for organic church don’t bear up when looking at the NT and early church, even if we discount the rest of christian history, and the search for something prior to that and purer is often a reading of consumer and secular ontologies with wishful thinking back into the nature of church in history.
Or at least that what I think it often turns into.
For example, the households of the NT were nothing like ours today, in terms of functioning as economic and political units, yet most often in popular books, that talk about organic meetings in homes, you’d think things in the NT were like today.
Jase
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jonathan Blundell
5.48 pm on 2 Mar 2009
Great post!
I’m finding myself trying to be more aware of my tendency to simply deconstruct for the sake of deconstructing.
Reminds me of the sayings I heard all the time growing up, “They’re simply tearing you down to make themselves look better” and “If you can’t say something good – don’t say anything at all.”
My wife and I have had different experiences in the church (institutional and not) and while I have a bitter taste in my mouth for the institution – she’s found nothing but joy and peace in the institutional churches she’s been a part of.
My parents have also had mixed experiences. And they’re now very active in an institutional church they cherish and love.
I don’t think it’s the institution itself that’s wrong (even though I’m very likely to jump on that band wagon) – it’s those taking part/managing the institution that cause things to go sour.
And the same thing can happen in the non-institutional/organic churches as well.
Reply to this comment
Comment by John Duncan
9.01 pm on 2 Mar 2009
I wonder whether the doctrine of the ‘powers’ has relevance here? It has always seemed to me that institutions develop a life of their own; this can be benevolent if it is subject to the ‘organic’, but very often the institution develops a power of its own that either hinders through the work of the church through inertia, or eventually can come to oppose it, through malevolent entrenched structures.
I like the sound of ‘articulate institutional imagination’ but is it strong enough to deal with the realities of what institutions can become?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Nathan
10.23 pm on 2 Mar 2009
I think it may help if organizations are built to reject numerical growth beyond a certain size. Good systems promote both spiritual growth and numerical growth. Without some sort of numerical growth release valve, the system must adapt to the greater size with complexity or oversimplification. Thus the harmful bureaucracies and/or terrible localization/personalization which hamper the spiritual and/or numerical growth. The problem is poor scaling.
If we get a good sense of the scale at which our systems best perform, then we can be intentional about preparing to split/plant/replicate as we approach that threshold. If we indeed have a good system, then the spiritual growth that comes with it should be preparing new leaders/elders for the new plant, just as the numerical growth should provide new resources to sustain it.
Everything in nature has inherent size limits for sustained health which are dependent on both internal DNA and external environment. There’s no strict answers about what size is right for all organizations, but there is always a size limit. And even those sustainably healthy organisms have limited lifetimes. The time may come for the elder institutions to disband and leave their resources to their offspring. This is not a bad thing.
So in my view, the trick is knowing how big is too big for your particular local institution, preparing to reproduce when that threshold is approached, and truly allowing the offspring to be self-defining (since their context must be different than yours and thus they must be different).
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ryan
6.21 am on 3 Mar 2009
Jason: right in this moment I’m enjoying, fresh downloaded U2! Otherwise, plugging away on my M-Div and inching closer to that finish line.
I don’t have a lot to add to the excellent dialogue here except to say that I think it’s an important puzzle to puzzle at. I think it’s true that many who’ve gone post-XXXXX(church, evangelical, religion…) are not reflective enough on how they may have been co-opted even more by the secular, consumerist system than whatever flavor of church they’ve gone “post” from. That’s excellent insight on your part. It’s got to be more than just a shift in the walls and paint colors (I know it is for many). I appreciated your past challenge to not try and answer theological questions with sociological answers. I’m also with Jonathan in that I know too many sincere disciples who continue to benefit greatly from the “institutions” of church.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Fran Beckett
1.16 pm on 3 Mar 2009
Hi Jason
This certainly seems to have generated a lot of debate! What intrigues me is a slightly different angle on this – that there is order at the heart of the universe, patterns deeply imprinted on the universe (I just love the whole ‘fractals’ thing!), and the first description of God’s activity we read in Genesis is where he brings shape and order into what is formless and chaotic and that this activity has relationships at the heart of it (between God/people, people with each other, and people with the surrounding world/environment).
There are some clues here I think for the nature of church which takes us away from an institutional model to something that is more organic and relational without it being purposeless, disconnected, or lacking some form of order…
It’s certainly a subject to muse further on – so thank you for raising it in such a helpful manner.
Grace and peace
Fran
Reply to this comment
Comment by Andy Kinsey
3.37 pm on 3 Mar 2009
Jason:
Andy Kinsey, in Indiana, a friend of Andrew Walker, and visitor to the Deep Church website here. Keep up the good work.
I think your blog/article has struck a cord! I have struggled with what I see as the ant-institutional attitudes/arguments of the emergent and missional and organic church movements here in the states and elsewhere. What concerns me, though, is the whole concept of paradosis: how will the church institute those means and practices that ensure the handing on of the faith once delivered to the saints -in both substance and practice? It seems missional and emergent, taking organizational cues from postmodern organizational theory, could be giving away too much at this point. I am referring to Andrew’s article in Deep Church at this point.
In addition, I have also seen a ‘revisionist’ trend in emergent church circles with respect to theology – Caputo, Rollins, and Raschke (at least this is my reading). Again, the paradosis issue comes to the fore: what are we handing on? Is it orthodox and catholic?
I hope to attend the conference in Pittsburgh in June. Perhaps we can continue this important conversation.
And keep us the good work here…
Andy Kinsey
Grace United Methodist Church
Franklin, Indiana -
Reply to this comment
Comment by Paul
7.39 pm on 4 Mar 2009
I’m thinking maybe we need to learn best practice from the front lime of the battlefield where care is imperative to infect our hospital institutions e.g. http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/2009/03/nhs_told_to_learn_from_exemplary_military_healthcare.html;jsessionid=F83D54B317B8E32D5DA515FAD946A2A2
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
1.12 pm on 5 Mar 2009
Good article and suggestion, but it would imply using war as a metaphor and reality for the Christian life, rather than ‘organic’ that is in vogue at present. And make me wonder again how do we choose the metaphors and realities that we shape church with?
Jase
Reply to this comment
Trackback by Cippenham Baptist Church
10.41 am on 13 Mar 2009
The Myth of the Institution-less Church…
from deepchurch.org.uk
These days there seems to be a deep suspicion of all organisations, and in particular any structure, hierarchy and a basic resistance to anything that is an ‘institution’. And I for one, am convinced that institutions are…
Reply to this comment
Comment by John
9.46 am on 16 Mar 2009
Hello Jason
Some interesting thoughts and comments on the relationship between institution and church, many of which touch upon themes which I explored quite fully in a discussion document that I wrote a couple of years ago examining the concept of “open source community” :
“I believe that a fresh, new approach to Christian community living can begin to be imagined and lived out by understanding some of the principles of “Open-Source” — a new way of thinking and co-operating that is powering new technologies and resource use, throughout the world — the most prominent example being open-source software — the kind of software that increasingly powers the Internet.
The following document examines the current crisis of confidence which is present amongst western Christianity and suggests a working model for adopting a form of Christian community that is “non-hierachical, low maintenance, capable of development and change, yet settled enough to uphold a variety of people-types; reliant upon shared concerns and values, much less so upon shared resources.”
It’s presently located at http://eternalpurpose.org.uk/osc, from where it is also available in pdf format for download.
shalom
John Clements
Reply to this comment
Comment by Bryan Riley
2.49 pm on 20 Mar 2009
It is always easier to be against something than it is to create. Your wisdom here is good.
The good news is that we, as image bearers, were created to create – and to be able to create something that is good and very good. Moreover, Jesus finished all work at the Cross, and we can simply cling to that. It is only the enemy who would have us believe we are powerless to do something about the negatives in our institutions.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Barry
5.07 pm on 20 Mar 2009
Institutions are a product of this world. Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world.
The problem, at least as I see it, is that the institution hinders the function of the body. It creates a ‘the church will take care of it’ mentality. The only reason we need an institution is because the people of God are not being the church. The institution trains the people to not be the church but to do church.
Right now we may be in a catch 22. The people have no training in being the church so removing the institution could possibly be disastrous. On the other hand, the institution does not train people into maturity. If the institution of church were a school, we would never leave grade 4. The thing is, rarely does one ever graduate; or is healed as in the metaphor of a hospital.
If the institution were to stick around in a productive means, it needs to change it’s focus. It needs to be trying to work it’s way out of a job. Mature the people so that they can be the church without having to do church or go to church.
Reply to this comment
Pingback by The Myth of the Institution-less Church « sacred journeys in L.A.
7.21 am on 31 Mar 2009
[...] HT: Deep Church [...]
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Dream Awakener » Choice Blog Entries - Community, Instition-less, Echo Within
7.45 am on 31 Mar 2009
[...] The Myth of the Institution-less Church Jason Clark at Deep Church has a great post for those with a deep suspicion of all organizations and institutions. He makes a call for some institutional imagination. [...]
Reply to this comment
Comment by nathan colquhoun
9.20 am on 5 Apr 2009
a friend send out an e-mail to a few of us with your post on it, it generated some discussion, but i thought i would post it here just to keep it all on one place.
Nope, I disagree with the institution’s existence at more of a fundamental level. I wish we had never evolved past the point of “hunter/gathering” of needing to supply only the basic needs for our own sphere of influence. The institution is a mirror reflection of one primitive tribe’s will to increase their sphere of influence across a greater diameter or conquer another tribe by being what we would now term “efficient”. It’s the whole reason we started segmenting our small groups (or tribes) into specialized jobs (farmers who produce food, construction workers who build shelters, plumbers and water/sewage treatment managers who provide “clean” water after we dirty it, pastors who are given responsibility for a moral path and spiritual practice that is already inside each of us). The institution has paved the way and created a road map for how to segment our society into small subsections of useless clones who only know about one aspect of life instead of many. It has forced many people who have not been educated otherwise to only learn about life in a certain field of interest or from one vantage point. (Whether that be spiritual, political, emotional, etc.)
The whole idea behind an institution is to be as far reaching and big as possible. Why the hell does everything need to be big and viewed through a macro lens? Just because we now have a more global awareness? The more any institution gets involved, the more it neuters the common individual to act or react. We, the common individual, rely on the institution to provide whatever service we desire in exchange for whatever institutional field of interest we specialize in.
The institution may never fully empower an individual (as the institution for most is outward and feeble).
All that being said (and re-reading the original post and some of the comments that follow), I know I’m attempting to go back in history, put myself there, but still keep my 21st century, self aware mind. However, I realize that this is impossible (by any intentional time travel in my lifetime that is). I realize if we were to forcibly remove the institutions from power that the same structures would form immediately afterward. However, I think that there is enough of “us” (not to be confused with “us” as an institutional withdrawl) who have withdrawn from many of the institutions. This is causing many to change (seemingly) radically or falling apart. As they change, they will not woo me back though. I have found all that I need from within (how new-age-y is that, eh? ). I still value relationship with an individual person but not with people as a mass institutional commonality. The institutions do not need me and I do not need the institutions. If I ever do, I hope they won’t be around any longer for me to “fall back” on
That’s my give and take.
Dave
Reply to this comment
Comment by nathan colquhoun
9.21 am on 5 Apr 2009
The above comment was from my friend Dave, the below one is mine.
I agree with Dave in his reaction against institutions, and only because of what many institutions are simply nothing more than a large community of people all benefiting a few people at the top, and all of them following a few people at the top. Unless that is God at the top (which we would all want to claim to) then I don’t see it happening.
However, if we could have institutions that existed for the people at the bottom, well then , now you are talking. The conference I am at this weekend is a perfect example. It’s open source, and there is no top or bottom. Everyone has a role, developer, user, raper (those that make a killing of the product they didn’t make) etc. All of them love each other and wouldn’t exist without one another. An institution like this I am for. I’m not freaked out by specialization like Dave seems to be, I think its ok to focus in on one or two things you are good at and kick some ass, I can’t honestly expect to learn all the skills and be good at everything. What’s the point of community.
Here is my fear Dave, is that if we throw out institutions all together, then eventually we throw out community, because in a way its very much an institution, but it doesn’t exist for its top members but it exists for everyone inside it and more importantly for a purpose outside itself. You’re view eventually leads you to solidarity with yourself and dependence on no one.
Dom, the institution that you would pull for (my guess you would be much more closer to a pope/bishop type institution, correct me if I’m wrong) I think is ridiculous and is exactly why many people are bunking the entire institutional model. To many people at the top, who are people just like us, fall because they are higher up and not on eqaul level with everyone else. No man should be on top with control and power unless it’s Jesus, which again, I just don’t buy it if someone says that they themselves or someone else has been put in a position of power by God over his body.
Nathan.
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Some quotes from posts that have made me think! « New Covenant Christianity
8.25 am on 27 May 2009
[...] to Comments This post looking at institutions in general and then applying it back to the church. Comment on Deep Church Blog I agree with Dave in his reaction against institutions, and only because of what many institutions [...]
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Institutional Naivety – #awaf no.1 at Deep Church
7.35 am on 30 Jun 2009
[...] thought is a re-post from a previous piece I [...]
Reply to this comment