"The study shows these believers continue to grow spiritually by serving others and through meaningful relationships with other believers."

Well, isn't that the Purpose Driven Life in a nutshell? The people who responded may have judged themselves to be growing spiritually but that would be because of the lack of substance in the teaching they have been receiving. What does God's Word say?

For one thing God's Word says to immerse ourselves in God's Word first. Once again, the cart has been put before the horse.

Excellent post. I can definitely understand how being, or even seeing someone be a 'parking-lot attendant for Jesus' or a 'door-greeter for Jesus' could leave a bitter taste in one's mouth. I agree that the church has been institutionalized to the point where the focus is the programs and not the people- so much so that it takes excessive external investment (both financially and in human resources)to continue its existence. I agree the church needs lessons in sustainability, but I also think the phrase "one who loves the church but not the institution" is a bit counter-productive.

I definitely identify with your feelings, as a member of a conservative, evangelical, pseudo-'mega-church' I see the problems you're describing every Sunday morning. My concern is that, in the minds of many members, the programs ARE the church. The identify so much so that, speaking for the folks in my church, if I were to tell them that 'I like the Church but not the programs' I think it would be heard as demeaning their faith. Not as though they should get rid of their programs, but simply that their programs are not good enough.

I've been working with my church to offer a perspective change from the top down of the area I participate in to make the focus more about intimate relationships and less about the numbers or program performance. To lean upon an overly used cliche, I'm attempting to pull the tree up by the root rather than chopping away at branches.

All of that to say, I agree that something is desperately out of 'whack' and I think your genuine concern for the church is quite admirable and inspiring.

Earl

Good questions. But before we go too far down the path of removing the "speck" from the eye of the Church, here are some of mine.

I wonder what role magazines like "Leadership" and "Charisma" have played in promoting the institution over the Body?

How have magazines promoted a culture of "success" that has not supported healthy churches?

Do our "christian" magazines lead the way, or just follow the trends and keep their profits up?

How many ads in "leadership" magazine promote serve the institution of church and not the Body? Do all the ads for Church Management software help promote the "institution?" And if so, what is the morally right thing to do when taking ads?

Is making a living from a magazine that serves to create the "institution" a good use of ones giftings?

My dilemma is that sometimes I love the people who write in magazines, I just don't like the "institution" of magazines. And can I support the magazine-institution that has helped promote and makes it profit from the institutional church?

Just more questions to think on. :-)

PS

My previous post is a bit tongue-in-cheek to make the point that it is easy for anyone to jump on the bandwagon of denigrating the church.. I DO NOT think that is being done in this article. We probably agree with more than we disagree. I also think these same criticisms you raise can be attached not just to the local "church" but also to the many industries that have grown up in our country that support the institution.

Every single one of us must look inward first before looking outward. I put myself in that same category because I too have been critical of the institution, but often remind myself to look at what I am doing first.

"Rarely does a church recruit, equip, and release saints to serve the mission outside its own immediate structure."

A church most certainly SHOULD be actively involved in the wider community - corporately and individually. You answer your own question at the end - its not an either/or situation. Ideally you will have a community of believers (the real definition of a church in my mind) that is actively being salt and light with the world outside the church community, but is also cultivating a committed, active and intimate community life within itself. I think those two sides of the same coin - while not achieved without intentional hard work - are practical, biblical, and quite possible. I am happy to say that my church, while far from perfect, comes close to this ideal and so i know its possible.

In our current milieu, it appears that very few leaders have really, deeply wrestled with the questions you raise. Once a congregation becomes an institution, it tends to takes on a life and personality of its own. (And sadly, the personality of the insitution often mirrors that of a pharisee - rule-bound, graceless and demanding that everyone toe their own line.)

Leaders, please keep talking about this issue - pushing this issue. If a few additional leaders awaken to this issue, it is guaranteed in some very kingdom ways to change the way they do Church, Inc.

Amazingly insightful post. Many of us are struggling deeply with this issue. I think you are spot on in the distinction you draw between the institution and the church. Like you, I believe some structure is critical. Like you, I also can't shake this nagging feeling that we are not living up to our potential as God's people. Perhaps our petrified thinking concerning the institutional church has caged us in.

The institutional church should be a pathway to a grander destination. I fear we've sometimes made the institutional church a destination unto itself.

We owe it to ourselves and those we serve to wrestle with this question.

I hope to say more later, but two quick items.

First, I think it was Cyprian not Augustine who said, "He who does not have the Church as mother cannot have God as Father."

Second, to get a similar but non-Christian perspective on the "I love Jesus but hate the church" mentality, check out Stephen Prothero's AMERICAN JESUS. He does a great job putting this into historical perspective.

i think the single biggest problem with regards to the institutionalization of the church is the concept of church membership. i've been to too many churches that practice this concept. the result is that "members" are regarded - and sometimes treated - as being more godly, more involved, more special than "non-members", and in some circumstances, i've even seen "non-members" be excluded from areas of ministry that are "members only" and shoved into the service roles that no one else wants and that potentially are not where their gifts lie. it would be misleading of me to not confess that this has happened also to myself, when i was "fired" from a leadership position when someone complained to the pastor that i was not a "member" of the church - this after years of active service and the pastor making a big deal over how we needed more young people involved in this ministry area. i was fired without so much as an invitation to membership (which i suppose is moot, as i thoroughly oppose the concept and would not have accepted such an offer).

the whole concept of church membership sickens me. where does a church get off requiring people to pledge allegiance to a specific institution or congregation? how can people regard this as anything other than divisive, elitist, and detrimental to the community of the body?

this is where i struggle with the institution, and i dare say it is a daunting concept to others of my university/post-university age group. and how confusing a message is it, to be told that the church really does accept everyone, and then be shown that it is little more than a hierarchical club?

how do other people feel about membership?

Not sure if this is helpful. But I am part of a church plant in Brisbane, Australia targeting unchurched young adults.

We have never talked about committment to the institution, but rather to God and to people.

Here is how it plays out...

1. We tell people that they don't have to serve formally in the institution.
Service is all of life. It might be formally or informally, inside or outside the church.

2. We tell people that our church won't last forever.
None of the New Testament churches are alive and kicking. If we stop fulfilling our mission leading unbelievers to become sold-out missionaries, then we will shut down the institution and try something else.

3. We tell people that we are not trying to build a church.
Our mission is to make disciples, not build the church. These sound the same. But they are sometimes competing. If an unbeliever walks in, and I know that the church down the road is a better fit for him/her, then I would do what I could to help them fit in down the road. This is good for making disciples, but it doesn't build our church.

4... etc. You get the picture.

More here...
http://www.neoleader.org/node/582
http://www.neoleader.org/node/589

Seems to me this is really the same issue that Pagan Christianity deals with, except it's more directed toward the church as a whole rather than the institution of the pastorate.

Either way, though, it's an important question worth wrestling with, one that we're not likely to have any easy answers for.

Dana,

Your comments about membership are thought-provoking.

As a member (charter member, no less) of a multicultural, multigenerational evangelical church, I think membership is necessary in order to provide our attendees with a basis of understanding who we are and what we're about as a church. Without membership classes, there is no consistent way we know of for people to receive that inculcation of understanding.

At our church, we generally do not restrict others from serving in our body on the basis of membership vs. non-membership, except in two important capacities -- serving on our church council, and congregational voting.

From my vantage point, you need to have folks who have demonstrated a commitment to the vision of the church in these roles, otherwise you just have folks making their own assumptions about what we're about.

There was a time when all you had to do was use the word "church" or "Christian church" and generally speaking folks knew what to expect and what standards to hold to ... not anymore.

And I say this not wishing to come from a conservative darn-those-pesky-emergents place, but just simply saying that different denominations, alliances, parachurch organizations and churches themselves all have differing priorities of what principles are most important to them. If you don't have a specific sense of what that is for your church, then chances are either you're not doing much in conjunction with its vision (Which isn't necessarily bad or wrong -- but if that's the case why are you there?) or you're doing your best to align yourself with its vision according to your own understanding, which may or may not be all that accurate.

The common definition of membership in our society best relates to organizations, teams or clubs. Membership typically means that we pay our dues, receive certain benefits or services, vote in meetings, and have our name on a list somewhere.

This basic definition of membership is usually divided into two parts: 1)what we do and 2)how we earn the right to do what we do. “What we do” is our vision and goals, meetings, activities, mission, and so on. The “earning our rights” part is a list of names on a sheet of paper or computer program who have met the criteria set forth for membership by the institution or organization. In this setting, we become a member with other like-minded people, who have the same interests and values, the same mission and goals, the same beliefs and traditions, etc. This involves both our choice to join the organization and the organization’s choice to accept us.

Membership in our particular local church means two basic things: 1) we are connected in relationship to Christ through salvation and 2) we are in active participation with Christ and one another as His body working together for His purposes. As we understand it in Scripture, church membership was automatic when people came into the kingdom of God through salvation. The Book of Acts tells us that people were added to the church on a daily basis as they were saved. In other words, they did not wait six months while they attended a new members class nor did they wait until the next Sunday when the church could meet together and vote them in.

The NT church is made up of everyone who possesses faith in Christ. The NT often refers to us as “brothers” and “sisters” because we are a spiritual family, with God as our common Father. We are individually different, yet we work together in harmony (Romans 12:4–5). As a family, we share each other’s burdens, rejoicing with those who rejoice and weeping with those who weep (1 Corinthians 12:26). Rather than agreeing to and signing a statement that we will abide by a creed or discipline, God’s love binds us together in seeking after His Spirit and truth. A creed or discipline “obligates” our obedience, but love “motivates” our obedience.

In the traditional structure, one can be an “institutional” member of the church and never function as a member of God’s family. As a result, most organizations and churches have two membership lists – 1) “active” and 2) “inactive” members. People's interests and involvements change, they move away, they get caught up in their own world, they grow lukewarm in their relationship to God and the church does not see them for months or even years – but they remain inactive members of the church. Properly understood, the church does not have and cannot have an “inactive members” list. Our membership is not based upon the same requirements and obligations as a secular organization, but upon a common and shared life in Christ which is an "active" life.

Well put, very well put. I agree with everythiing you said.

The party is about to end . . .

I totally agree. I am fortunate to be a part of a church similar to Imago Dei in that the church is seeking to be focus on the global mission of God and serving Jesus in all nations. God and His mission that He has called us to are so much bigger than the walls, procedures, and programs of any church.

Amen! and Amen! I was at this same place a few short years ago, and the Lord brought me to my knees in repentance for not loving the church. There is no line in the love and forgiveness of Christ for us to pick and choose who should be under the Grace of God. Since HE has been showing me that sometimes the out reach starts right where we are, and the lost are sitting in the churches as well. I still pray to love them, as it is easy for my mind to decide they should know better, and they are the same as me struggling and searching out God on this road maybe on a different place on the road. Thank you for this post!

(came over from Bajanpoet) darla-Overcomer

It is crucial that we work through this issue, the institution and the body of Christ, we call both the church, and at times they are. often, in my estimation the institution is more about personalities than it is about Christ. We often place church splits, schisms and the like in theological language, but in many cases it seems that the theology is only the excuse, not the reason.

God being present in your heart every moment of your life is more important than you being present in a building on every Sunday.

The distinction between the church and the institution was brought home to me quite dramatically about 15 years ago. My sister had committed suicide in circumstances that raised into question some of the practices and people associated with a local church that my parents had attended faithfully for over 30 years. One evening the pastor, head of the board, another board member and the church lawyer asked if they could come by my parents' to visit. This was 2-3 days after my sister's funeral. Without so much as a word of condolance, the board head began to try to emotionally manipulate my parents into making some sort of written statement to the congregation, which I quickly realized the church could use to counter any lawsuit my parents might bring against the church. In their grief and because of their trust in God, a lawsuit was the furthest thing from my parents' minds. I mentioned this to my parents once, and they were flabbergasted. A lawsuit would not bring back your sister, they said, and it would not heal, but only make our wounds worse and tempt us to be bitter. Yet the leaders of this large, evangelical institution, well-known in our area, retreated out of fear and a lack of trust in God to a defensive position, and I saw firsthand the subtle but very real betrayal of my parents' faithfulness to that church. My parents, somewhat unsuspecting and unsophisticated in the face of this sort of behavior, nonetheless sensed that something was amiss. Although they continued attending this institution and continued to be involved in its activities, and continued treating everyone with respect and grace, I sensed that they knew they had been betrayed. And it was sad to see the pastor and elders avoid eye-contact with my parents when passing by or only engage in perfunctory conversation. Yet, many people did reach out to my parents, with thoughts, words and prayer - the real church at work.

Great post. I agree that the crux of the issue for those of us on the inside is how you deal with volunteers, and what expectations you have for donations. As Dana mentioned, when we become an institution, we do tend to restrict some positions to "members" and treat non-members differently. But isn't that how we treat marriage? When you make the commitment to join, you enjoy special privileges. I work for the military, but I am not in the military, so although my job performs a military support function and they consider me a part of the organization, I do not enjoy the same benefits as a uniform-wearing military member.
The trick, then, is to provide opportunities for meaningful involvement of those on the edges of our congregation, or those straddling multiple church and parachurch groups, or those who are theologically opposed to signing a commitment card. How do we "be church" without losing the "ecclesia" in the brick and mortar? Only by cautious attention to people instead of format.

It's a relationship, not a set of rules.

Isn't that what we tell people about Christianity? Isn't it the same with "church"? Many people are in "church" not because they are crazy about the institution or the programs, but because they have relationships there. I've talked to several people about the institutionalism and their response is always - "my friends are there".

They acknowledge that they experience Christ mostly in the relationships and very little in the sermons and the programs.

Once church becomes non-relational, and nobody knows anybody else and the leaders are so far removed from the people that only your face looks familiar - then you must have things like "membership". It's kind of like the "proof" that you're really in agreement with the vision and purpose of the "church". It's kind of like your "W4" form. "Yeah - I really work here".

Jesus called his disciples "friends" - not "members". They knew each other and knew each other well - they didn't need to prove their committment by signing a card - they were there every day. How ridiculous is it to get my kid to sign a card committing to my family? If it came to that - how much of a family would I really have?

When the church ceases to be "relational" - it ceases to be "the church". Unfortunately - that is where professionalism and a spirit of excellence will take you.

My buddy once wrote a song: "Face on a page, name on a card, how can I say I love you?"

I had a brief conversation with my pastor about Church and church and membership. My suggestion was that membership was created to assist with budgets (I had worked in a church for several years, so I have seen much). My honest input was not met with great enthusiasm.

Church 'members' do need to feel validated or else they will go elsewhere to use their gifts. And we do need to remember that we are all part of a larger organism, so get active. Jay Bakker, son of Jim and the late Tammy Faye, makes anyone who walks into his church a member automatically. No requirements, no baptism, no card. You sought, you came, you're in.

I've been trying for years to find a spot to serve in my church. Raising my hand, offering to help out. And all I get is the "servant's heart" bit. According to comedian Tim Hawkins, that means you're stuck stacking chairs, like it or not, gift or not.

We need to get back to our roots and forget this silliness of walls and brick and get back to preaching the Kingdom of G-d, being the hands and feet again. Yeah, I'm one of those who doesn't like the church because the church is dying.

The Church has some vibrant leaders who are being told to remain silent because they don't match the drapes, while the church needs a respirator and a good dusting.

It is exciting to see what happens when a church buys into what true church membership is all about. I wrote in an earlier post that we have no formal membership and the reasons why. You just sort of hang out until you decided that God would have you hang with us.

In the last few weeks, one 79 year old lady picked out and paid for a new lighted church sign. Another couple took an unused little building on our property and is remodeling it into a coffee shop to be operated by our young adult ministry. We recently renovated our worship center without a business or committee meeting. It was completely paid for before it was finished - all with volunteers.

I have been a pastor for 30+ years and was told that if I ever dropped formal church membership I would regret it because I would lose control of the congregation, they would become uncommitted and there would be no church discipline.

Well, I hoave lost control of the congregation - they are running crazy with ideas and projects. They are more committed than ever because they feel they (and not the hiearchy) are THE church, and church discipline - it is amazing at how people are holding each other accountable.

It is almost fun to be a pastor again.

Interesting article. I think he's spot on as is Dan Kimball (They like Jesus, but Not the Church) - I think they are saying the same thing. It's just semantics. Here's the paragraph where I think he confirms what Kimball says:

"Fifteen years later I now find myself struggling with a new dilemma. As a young Christian I loved Jesus but not the church. As a more mature believer, I now describe myself as one who loves the church but not the institution."

I think his disagreement with Kimball is the purely semantics, and I don't think he took the time to read the book (sorry). Kimball's book highlights people outside the church talking about Jesus. When referencing the church they are not talking about the body and bride of Christ (most of them don't understand "Christianese"), but the institution of "organized religion". In fact, I think it goes to the very heart of the book - People outside the church don't understand "church lingo". They don't know that to love Christ, you need to love His "bride". They just like Jesus... As do I!
Programs come and go (as do church buildings), but people will always be in need of a relationship with their savior!
My two cents!

Today, it seems like God’s people exist to serve the institution in the fulfillment of its mission...

When God's people share their lives together structure does exist. The question becomes, "How much, what kind, and to what purpose?"

Maybe those "rabid fluid-organic-anti-linear-pomo-loosy goosey-anti-establishment church people" are on to something.

Tom