Comments on: The Myth of the Institution-less Church

By: Institutional Naivety – #awaf no.1 at Deep Church

Institutional Naivety – #awaf no.1 at Deep Church — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:35:01 +0000

[...] thought is a re-post from a previous piece I [...]

By: Some quotes from posts that have made me think! « New Covenant Christianity

Some quotes from posts that have made me think! « New Covenant Christianity — Wed, 27 May 2009 07:25:57 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 02 May 2009 02:49:13 +0000

Sylvia,
Jesus never said it would be easy! Just that he would always be there for us.

Bill,
Thank you

By: Gabriel (G²)

Gabriel (G²) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:31:11 +0000

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….

By: Bill Lollar

Bill Lollar — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:35:22 +0000

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.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:29:16 +0000

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.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:06:50 +0000

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.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:26:25 +0000

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.

By: Barry

Barry — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:54:04 +0000

“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.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:03:40 +0000

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.