How is the relationship of worship to mission?
I ask because worship appears to be the thing that pulls the people of a local church together as a center of gravity.

How does worship commit the church to an institutional structure (or does it)?

Does the need for apostolic leadership commit us to some kind of institutional structure?

What do we mean by "institution?"

Casey, your last question really had me going early in January as Viola and Barna's new book was generating buzz. I'll share a quote and then link a larger piece: I see INSTITUTIONALIZATION as the process of moving from personal and shared responsibility for the ongoing life of a community to reliance on mechanisms and means that may no longer relate to the founder’s purpose. You may reflect that this definition is informed by concerns about centralization of power, bureaucratization, hierarchy and control, rationalization and efficiency, objectification and depersonalization. You would be right. (To me this represents the worst of secularism and Cartesian imagination and what Ellul described as the spirit of technos).

Related, in chapter 7 of The Forgotten Ways Alan offers a diagram for the life cycle of movements. The decline phase is focused on varieties of doubt. He summarizes Howard Snyder’s work on signature characteristics of movements (from the book Signs of the Spirit):

* a thirst for renewal
* a new stress on the work of the Spirit
* an institutional-charismatic tension
* a concern for being a countercultural community
* nontraditional or non-ordained leadership
* ministry to the poor
* energy or dynamism

Alan offers two other typologies for comparison. David Hurst’s (Crisis and Renewal) typology of movement from hunters to herders is the more interesting. That transition is from..

* mission becomes strategy
* roles become tasks
* teams become structure
* networks become organization
* recognition becomes compensation

You have given a great explanation of what I consider Evangelical Magic--follow the formula/spell and God will guarantee the result.

We owe a great deal of this thinking to Charles Finney and his revivalist techniques. Until we understand our history and how it creates our present, we will never be able to transform our future.

Great post. I like your insights regarding the work and role of the Holy Spirit in the Church and in our hearts. I like Willard's words. How true.

But here's the rub. We created the problem. We (some of us) have agreed on and promoted a hermeneutic or even doctrine(s) that allows for the downplaying, the over-shadowing or complete elimination of a healthy understanding regarding the Holy Spirit. We didn't get where we are (as you describe) over night. It's our culture only to a certain degree. It's our hearts and minds that have strayed and we have created God in our image and the church as simply fell into line with the idolatry.

I agree with much of the article. Too often we reduce things to principles or certain practices that attribute success.

I am concerned about one part...

But once the Spirit-filled leader is gone, those remaining assume his or her ministry can and should be perpetuated.

Personally, I think this is a valid assumption. Otherwise we give credit to special leaders for ministry and not the Holy Spirit working through a collective of people. It's not a Spirit-filled leader that is important. It's that the entire group of people has been moved by the Spirit. It's not "his or her ministry" (i.e. the ministry of the leader), it's the ministry of the Holy Spirit in those people.

Why would you not assume that the Spirit would not want to continue that ministry despite a leader's exit? Sure this could be an opportunity to disperse and minister elsewhere, and in some cases that may be what should be done, but it seems like we're in danger in shifting the focus from the instituion to a single person, the leader. Shouldn't there be a sense of leading of the Holy Spirit of a community of believers that goes beyond just an instituion or a particular leader? Isn't that what we're really trying to get to?

C6 makes a powerful point that demands consideration. Scripturally there are powerful impulses that give rise to the institution of church - a community, a community that services (is that programs, etc.?) from Acts 2, a community that has a structure from Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus - well such a thing we know as the institutional church when you combine it with human ingenuity and our boundless ability to rationalize our way to just about anything. Even with a turning away from the modern institution we call church, how do we avoid, say 25 years from now, hearing similar critiques from our descendants? And do we just walk away from our institutions and give up on the people remaining there? I don't know. The Fitch blog has some great points in his Bridge comments, and McKnight's posting in CT on a robust Gospel set some great signposts for walking down this road.

Your post demonstrates to me once again, why on my breaks at the office I commit my time to read these posts. I want you to know, that your thoughts and words are the mouth piece of a growing population of youth and young adults who are starving for Jesus. The irony is we are starving for Jesus in our churches.

More people need to know they are not alone in their feelings convictions about the institutionalized churches. I know for myself and many others we feel like the rebels, the outsiders, the ones with "authority issues" But the more leaders and speakers and pastors and prophets and priests from our priesthood of believers who talk about this, the more freedom those feeling alone will have.

I, like yourself am so in love with the church (the people)and find that I am more in love with them now that the separation for myself has been made between the people and bricks.

Thank you for your courage and honesty and for the respect you had while you engaged with these sensitive topics "speaking the truth in love"

I for one look forward to dialogging more with people like yourself ready for a change...

I think this is a wonderful post. Excellent thoughts. I totally agree with you on this issue. Christianity isn't a religion it is a lifestyle. It is something we do in reaction to the love and grace of God.
I cherish that wonderful gift of grace and enjoy the relationship I have with God. It is personal. Close. I think that is one of the messages that we should be preaching is that God wants a personal relationship with us. Deep. Committed. I pray that we will be disciples of the 21st century making a difference in this culture now. We do that by the way we function as Christians as they did in the first century church.
I hope you have a blessed week.
In Him,
Kinney Mabry

Great post -- just like the previous one.

Bill, change is a natural part of culture. In 25 years the church better look different than we can imagine it now. (Actually the intention to build something that will be relevant in 25 years is a perfect symptom of an institutional mindset.) Some of the things that we hold dear now may in fact be derided then. That's okay. The church is in the present, and the present is never constant. I would like to see the church actually changing faster than culture so that we can intersect needs where we see the potential for them to exist. (Proactive vs reactive.)

Mark, there is no inherent problem continuing ministry after a leader has left the scene. But I think the most effective ministries are the ones that continually ask themselves of the necessity of their existence. I fear too many are simply continued because they can be. But I think the real issue being expressed here is that any new leader needs freedom to rework the organisation, and my experience is that this isn't always possible in the institution. It doesn't take long before the sacred cow of "we've always done it this way" starts to moo. :-)

This article and the last make the same essential points that George Barna's new book does. Only Barna's book covers a lot more than the pastor, clergy, building, salary, etc. and then documents all of it. I really liked Barna and Viola's definition of "institutional" versus "organic".

I totally agree. What the church needs are leaders who are desperately dependent on Jesus Christ and minister out of a love and passion for Him!

Two words:

Gnosti . . . cism.

Don't separate the spirit from the body.

Brad said, "But I think the most effective ministries are the ones that continually ask themselves of the necessity of their existence."

Great point. The hardest thing for institutions to do is to commit suicide-- even when that would be best for the Kingdom. Instead of killing themselves, institutions often wait for others (financial donors, those they serve, successful ministries) to pull the trigger that finally puts them in the grave. Here's to institutional suicide!

I love the spirit of this--idealistic and just a tad naive.

As much as we like to badmouth the 501(c)3 institution, it provides tax-deductions for tithes, and it allows churches to own buildings on land that is tax-free.

What do you think the effect would be if churches (and I'm talking about Skye's beloved groups of believers) would not get the government's favorable tax status? Think that would be a net plus, or a net minus?

That's worth discussing, but you can be sure that many groups would simply go out of existence. The emergent Darwinians will say, "Good. Those 501(c)3 dependent congregations SHOULD go extinct."

But if Christians have to spend more of their money on facilities and can't get a deduction for paying their pastors, I really doubt that's going to advance the cause of the Kingdom.

These are good thoughts. After all his concern about institution and how it warped the expression of Jesus and his bride, he has difficulty considering a bride without institutional wrapping. He even has to name-call and depricate those who do. If Dan was willing to do a more complete comparison of institutional system with the scriptures he would see a great deal of evil in institution. I have found key elements that nullify the commands of God for the sake of tradition, just as the Pharisees did. I know it is difficult for people who get their paycheck from institution to not read the Word through institution glasses. Example: When you read God's call for believers to prepare themselves to spur one another on to love and good works when they gather, and then you go to the institution and see a pulpit, pews and the saints lined up by their leaders for 99% one-way communication, you know they have institutional glasses on. Institution has so many substitutes for what God has asked for. God's grace is big enough to bless Dan's efforts inspite of his clinging to institution as good.

I have read so many books that hammer on the bad habits of insitutional church. But then they go and rebuild the whole system again, just using new words and a slight tweak of this or that. Using new words or changing your thinking without changing the foundational priorities and habit patterns changes nothing.

Scott P:

I guess I will take the naive approach any day when it comes to really following Jesus.

I guess it would be naive to think that if churches gave up their 501(c)3 dependency that perhaps God would make a way where there seemed to be no way.

I suppose it would also be naive to think that Christians now a days could detached themselves from their emotional bond to the building and meet in houses, or parking lots or parks.

And your right, Scott, it would the absolute supreme niavity to think that perhaps Jesus would come through on his "do not worry" promise. Because after all, we live in the West, we have money, power, riches, what do we really need that Jesus guy for anyways!?

I mean the Kingdom has to advance with money and tax deductions, look at the first Christians in Rome? They had so much money, tax deductions, programs, buildings! Right?

Maybe we have missed the mark, doesn't hurt to look back and see what we can fix in love and in truth, in humility and in grace.

Jarrod's got the right question; wrong answer. Dependence on tax-status is NOT healthy. Emancipate the church from its addiction to tax-exemption!

It may shrink the size of the body, but you can be sure that what's left will be more vigorous and more like Jesus!

I think it would be deliciously invigorating, spiritually speaking, to see the church loose it's tax protection status, tithes no longer tax deductible, and the mere mention of Jesus or "Christian" sending the noble moralists of our culture into apoplectic fits. When calling someone a "person of faith" was no longer seen as a good thing, but as a spiteful reminder of a lower social strata.
I wonder how many people would still consider themselves "Christian" when Christianity was no longer socially acceptable?

What exactly is a "person of faith"?

Could it be that the problem is not the institution, but the focus of the institution? I consider the poor job that the church has done with spiritual formation/discipleship, the growing biblical illiteracy and a disconnect from the spiritual in places outside the "sacred space".
Maybe if we took the lordship of Jesus Christ more seriously, and integrated Jesus lordship into all areas of our living we would see a different picture. How much of our preaching, teaching, and publication focus not on Christ Jesus but on programs, budgets, buildings and statements?

Finally, someone has put into words what I've been thinking for years. Thank you. What I need as a pastor is an example of how to equip people to serve outside the church institution. Folks are so brainwashed in the institutional mentality that they cannot conceive of serving God simply by loving their neighbors and getting involved in their communities on the grassroots level. In our culture it is required that we be able to quantify our "success" and have some kind of tangible, programmatic results to justify our ministries. I for one am fed up with it.

sheerakahn asked, "i wonder how many people would still consider themselves 'christian' when christianity was no longer socially acceptable?"

i think i can shed a little light on that question. i am from the canadian province of quebec, which has a long and tortured history when it comes to the church and the faith. it's a long, interesting, tragic story, and worth looking up, but what it boils down to is that both the institution and the faith are largely reviled in quebec, and for many years now only 0.02% of the population has called themselves 'christian'. to put that into perspective, it's the lowest rate in the developed world, and pakistan, a muslim country, has a consistent christian population percentage of 0.5%.

the result of being a christian in quebec was seeing a body that was strong and committed - it's so viciously unpopular to identify as a christian that we didn't see a cultural christian population. now that i am in another province where christianity is normal, i find myself adrift in an unfamiliar and distateful sea of cultural christians and a body who submits its service and mission to the god of church politics.

i crave to return to that strong, bountiful, %0.02 that was boldly serving in colleges and universities, charities, shelters, meeting several nights a week for prayer and worship, building each other up, making a difference by serving Christ and loving every minute of it. if it was certain that that could be achieved by something as simple as revoking the church's tax-exempt status, well.....

would something so simple and material really make a difference? i'm not convinced, but perhaps it couldn't hurt to try.

It is naive to think that 501C3 is the only answer, or even a very effective answer, to the global challenges that the Church should be addressing. We live in an age where corporate executives make 400 times the salary of the average blue collar worker. Exxon/Mobile boasts an annual profit of over 42 billion. It seems that the Church emasculates itself fiscally by worshiping at the altar of the 501C3 when there are clearly much more efficient ways to generate a positive cash flow. But should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Of course not. We need all we can get. But, to think that we can actually solve the world's social calamities with the pocket change we have left over after spending the rest of it on ourselves is grossly naive.

But, the first step is to re-evaluate what defines the mission of the Church and start committing ourselves to the Isaiah 58 mandate of meeting the needs of the poor and oppressed (which, according to God, is ironically the secret to meeting our own needs as well). The second step is to stop spending what we have on frivolous, extravagant worship edifices. The 3rd step is to begin redeeming profitable business models and start redistributing the wealth in more benevolent ways.

In so doing, we set new standards for the business community. Consumers are going to be much more prone to doing business with companies that are helping humanity, as well as being much more likely to support churches that do the same. Like them or not, the institutions will always be with us. Therefore, we can either choose to serve God outside of those institutions, or to work within them to make them more effective vessels of God's unconditional love and mercy. For this to happen, some must be called out from them--to set new standards; to lead the way prophetically; in order for others to see the vision clearly. Yet, others will be called to the challenge of redeeming those institutions from within. The more we understand that we are all in this together, the better we will accomplish God's will for His Church and for mankind.

Skye:

These are all great and wonderful questions, and the church needs to answer them. Many people give lip service to "equipping the saints to do the work of the ministry" - but precious few actually do it. To most "the work of the ministry" for laity is - the nursery, parking lot duty, ushering, teaching Sunday School .... things that keep the machinery running.

Would you take the time to carefully train the person who was going to be doing your job - knowing full well that your successful training would mean you lose the job (and the income)?

I heard for years from the pulpit - "my job is to work myself out of a job". This was just a pious fascade - not an apostolic reality.

The Apostle Paul seemed to have not stayed any place very long - just got it started then up and left. It's odd to me that I don't know of any leadership in any church that has adopted this philosphy. Why is that? There are tons of people calling themselves apostles these days.

I'll answer the question for you - because the Apostle Paul taught them how to meet together - how to live together - and how to serve Christ. He didn't need to stay for years. The common people did the work of the ministry.

They didn't build institutions, they "grew up" Christ inside of a group of people. Once Christ was established in that group - the apostle was only occassionally needed to sort out some mess. Hence - all of the epistles.

Jerry

As a younger Canadian Christian, I fully expect to live to the time churches lose their tax exempt status. Sooner or later some taxpayer group will start the petition. I can easily imagine the ad campaign and arguments.

I already regularly get asked by non-Christians why we deserve tax exempt status when other groups that "do good" don't. I find that question hard to answer when I know my local congregation is mostly inwardly focused.

Of course, I also don't know how to respond to members who ask why we don't just set a fee per family.

Does your church report how much if gives away with as much fan fair as it celebrates the gifts to the church? Do both issues get as much brain time from the leadership during decision making?