my thoughts?
i have trouble with the religion part of organized religion, rather than the organized part.
i believe, like you, that the church births christians - i disagree with you that the church is the same thing as organized religion. i believe organized religion could close down, and the church would continue and christians would continue to be born.
i do not hope for the closure of organized religion. i believe it serves a purpose for some people. however, it does very little for me at this point in my journey. it is more of a cultural thing for me, than anything. it's also a part of my heritage, which is the primary reason that i feel ambivalence about being less involved than before. but i do not fear that God disapproves of me in this. it's cultural, not spiritual, for me.
Do you see what I'm saying? it's so hard to put into words. I was raised with a strong sense of the invisible church, which informs a lot of what I have written in this reply. think of China, where no churches exist officially, and yet the church is thriving. we could rephrase that as no organized religion exists, yet the church is thriving. i don't believe Jesus came to start an organized religion. he did come to start his church.
Thanks Tammy, much appreciated. I'm sure God does not disprove of you either and I'm interested to hear more.
What does organised religion mean for you, what are you referencing when you talk about it?
I'm intriguied as even within China churches are organised, they gather and meet in the face of great persucution, whicj might require even more organisation for that to happen in secret?
So how are you defining organised, especially in the light of your comments on the invisible church? Do you see a tension or contradiction between the two? If so what is it?
"Do we ever stop to think that without the church there would be no Christians?" NO! We, followers of Jesus, ARE the Church. Church doesn't make us Christian. A Church is a body of Believers, not a building or an institution or an organization with a non-profit status.
Having said that, I think this article attempts to address some very key issues, many of which have been swimming around in my own head for some time now. How do we have an honest conversation about the institutional church without slinging mud or unpacking our garbage from a bad experience?
I believe there are some very fundamental problems with the traditional church system, although I have friends who are lead pastors and family members and dear friends who are active and vital members of a traditional church. So, how do I critique these problems without it sounding like I'm calling them "false" or attacking the Bride?
There has to be a place where followers of Jesus can have an honest discourse about the very real problems within our organized church, and to do so with civility and clarity.
For that I am thankful for TheOoze.com and their courage to publish articles such as this one.
I think, to begin with, we have to get beyond the idea that we cannot criticize a man-made system for its flaws and excesses. The Church system is separate from The Church Body. We ARE the Church. I am not critical of the people of God, but I am critical of the system and structure of the organizational unit.
I believe it is time for a structural reform and a paradigm shift. I think the Holy Spirit has already begun to implement such a shift as He has called thousands of people to leave the organized church and start House Churches in their community. People are breaking bread with their actual neighbors. They are opening their living rooms up to people who would never go to an organized church service. The Gospel is being preached and lives are being changed.
Best yet, we are learning again how to be disciples and how to make disciples, as Jesus commanded us.
For me, House Church is the best thing I've ever done with the word "Church" on it.
Check out a little video clip at the link below about the House Church movement in America: http://www.MissionHouseChurch.com
peas, Keith http://www.keithgiles.com
the unofficial church in China usually doesn't have any of the following:
buildings budgets paid staff marketing campaigns tarket audiences policy and procedures board of directors lawyer and accountant on retainer denominational affiliation newletters mailing lists zoning ordinances hierarchical structures
you get the idea.
what they do have is people who get together and care for each other and love God.
it's so much simpler.
I believe to me, organized religion has a lot to do with the unholy union of church and state, which started off primarily with Constantine in 300 AD, and culminating in the even unholier union of church and business, as seen in North America.
Mind you, there is nothing inherently wrong with state or business. but church is not meant to function like either one.
take any church you are familiar with, remove the things found in the above list, and what you have left is the invisible church. if anything at all is left.
Thanks Keith, I'm glad that the article helped articulate some of the thoughts that you having. I think it is a very positive purpose to try and converse with our christian brothers and sisters who are in the institutional church. As you so beautifully articulate we are the body of Christ, all followers of Jesus, no matter what form of gathering we assemble in to do it.
In terms of having that conversation i personally find it helpful to acknowedge that I owe a great debt to the institutional church, they are part of my faith heritage and without me growing up to encounter a living reality of God amongst them then I doubt very much i would have become or remained a christian. Despite the flaws that drove me mad there was still something more, the Spirit of God alive and Jesus still building his church...
I wrote something of my journey of remembering my history here: http://paulmayers.blogs.com/my_weblog/files/a_leafy_tale.doc
The other point I find helpful is to remember that the institutional church can offer me as much, if not more, useful critique of my church gathering - that they can highlight my blindspots and it reminds me that I am so often wrong that any church project i am part of will be flawed and imperfect.
House churches are brilliant, vibrant and vital, it takes so many different forms of church to reach so many different people, so i certainly welcome them but I would not to impose that as the only model or even the ideal model for church. It depends on the community, the context, the people, the call of the Spirit etc.
I keep needing to remind myself thought that to think they are without their flaws though would be to ignore our history and maybe realising that will help us to have two way open constructive critique.
I've made a couple of suggestions is there anything that you or anyone else has found particularly helpful in constructive engagement?
Finally, I think your thoughtful comment has highlighted the point i was trying to make when I said that without church we would have no christianity, altho i admit i was being playfully provocative. What i meant by church is not about a building or a denomination but about christians practicing gathering together to live out a life of faith together, to pass on the faith they have received and to encourage, love, care for, spur on and strengthen one another on this journey
Thank you tammy for coming back and helping me to understand more of where you are coming from, although you might have to help me out some more :)
As I read your helpful response it made me think that all churches are organised but that some churches are more organised than others. In that it takes some organisation for people to meet, some setting of place, time etc. That to be a people who you so beautifully wrote, "who get together and care for each other and love God" does not happen spontaneously very often. Maybe that is my experience but i can trace back all the times where that has happened to be being a result of some form of gathering of the body of christ that took organisation for it to happen.
Maybe then it is not so much organised religion but over organised religion that you and I would both have problems with? The mirco management, excessive control etc that can result in having lawyers on retainers :) Some of those things such as paid staff, trustee boards, mailing lists etc can be helpful and useful but maybe the key word is proportionate and sympathethetic to culture/context/leading of the Spirit?
I happen to agree with you about church and state getting into bed with each other, particularly where that has been used as a tool of oppression, control and collaboration. However, in saying that I acknowledge that I can not write off hundreds of yrs of history, that i am part of a chain of faith that stretches back through time that involves people faithfully passing on what they received even if they did so in churches which had closer ties to the state than my world view today would find acceptable. Jesus and the Spirit have continued to build, lead and guide their church even amongst its flaws and failingsa and as they have done for the last 2000 yrs, I have faith that they will continue to do so...
The period of the modern church has made mistakes navigating the waters of power and state and i am sure in a post church world, as we enter a time beyond christendom that we will be equally guilty of making mistakes - perhaps even my fear and anti-institutional bias will actually preclude me from engaging as effectively as i might. That i don't want to see government/state as a poweful force for bringing good and instead want to create it myself in my seperated church bubble. My fear and my pride both conspiring against me serving the kingdom of God as a result...
Perhaps that's one blind spot that the institutional church can continue to challenge me about and one that we can continue to constuctively critique them on?
What do you think? Where am i missing your excellent, much needed, thoughts?
Paul, thanks for the good article. I think that you have captured something really big here. I think that many of us who had bad church experiences or who had been burned by religion were easily drawn to the emergent movement. While I don't want to minimize what others have gone through, I think that many of us need to learn how to forgive those in the past -- whatever the wrong -- and seek the will of God and go forward. Otherwise, we are just reacting against something rather than actually moving in faith. That is just my opinion, however. Others may feel differently.
What is going to happen when a christian gets burned by a church or small group that is influenced by emergence? Where are they going to go then? How will they react?
"Maybe then it is not so much organised religion but over organised religion that you and I would both have problems with?"
agreed. the problem is, i am weary from 25 years of looking for a church that doesn't over-organize. the only place i find it, is in the times when people of God get together, and they don't think they are "having church", but they are. as soon as they call it church, it's as if this obsessive need to organize overtakes them. we have this cultural definition of church, which i believe kills some of the life as soon as the label is applied.
"Jesus and the Spirit have continued to build, lead and guide their church even amongst its flaws "
I agree with you there too. But a lot of that building has happened in spite of our attempts to organize God. and some of the best building has come from places where there was very little organization.
so the question is, how much is too much?
"instead want to create it myself in my seperated church bubble."
i don't of the invisible church that way. instead i think of it as infiltrating its culture, having more effect upon the world around it than the organized church it able to have, simply because people don't think of it as "church".
tammy and paul - I think there is a difference between organized and programmed. There is a difference between religion and religious. The differences might be slight but it's an important tension to live in if we're going to do the mission and live it well.
Hey Paul, I just wanted to start off by saying that I found your article to be thought provoking, and soul searching. I also found that it did not cover my reasons for wanting the IC to die.
I have found that my main criticism of the IC has been motivation. Long-term goals. From my perspective, the IC is little more than the shards of Catholicism trying to accomplish the same thing Catholicism had accomplished previously (though obviously perversely). I'm echoing Tammy here when I talk about the IC being spawned from Constantine in 300AD. This motivation is flawed from my personal experience, education, and perspective.
My second criticism has been what I feel the biblical account of the Christ-filled life should reflect. I have never experienced an IC 'service' that has even approached the kind of meeting of Christ-filled believers in scripture. Were there problems? Of course! Was it a different time? Of course! But I think we need to look at what we all deeply long for, look at what the IC service is providing, and say, "Is God able to meet my need through this?"
And to this I say 'no'. Where 'Elder' is a title held like "executive", and does not necessarily mean 'elder in the faith'. Where 'pastor' means "CEO", and does not necessarily mean he is serving the flock.
I believe what people are most looking for is a chance to make genuine friendships with like-minded people. To Practice their faith in a place where questions and doubts can be aired, while encouragment and revelation can be shared. (I'm a poet and I didn't know it!)
I think people become intentionally obtuse when a complaint, doubt, or rejection of the IC is expressed. "Don't we need structure? You can't avoid it..." It isn't about 'being structured', or 'having things organized' that is the problem. It's freedom structures and organizations in the political sense I believe. In the Law sense really.
I think of a law like a layer of plastic over my head. Right now I am under God, USA, California, and Santa Cruz laws. That makes 4 layers of law. When I step into 'church', I am under God, church, USA, California, and Santa Cruz laws. I am more oppressed inside than I was outside. This should not be.
I hope this has not been too terribly confusing, and if I have said anything that was too abrasive or aggressive please let me know so I can explain myself and we can forgive each other. =^)
Thanks Holly, much appreciated.
I think reaction can be a v good thing, in fact i think the emerging church conversation is a very good thing too. My feeling however is that we can spend a lot of time still trying to prove that we in our emerging conversation have become the 'true' church and those in the institutional church have been left behind. My main feeling is that we are still repeating the mistake of the modern era of wanting to be right/win rather than wanting to be good/bless.
Being pathological about the flaws of the institutional church will not help us hear - just as if you want to get well medically you see a doctor not a pathologist ;)
And i agree with you, sooner or later we will start to see flaws in the emerging church and what do we then - watch as another generation claims to be the emerged church and us emerging folk are mere institutional dinosaurs??? :)
Thanks Tammy, I'm sorry you've experienced 25 yrs of over organised church. I guess that can be the problem what ever the chiurch, emerging, institutional or whatever.
I'm not convinced that the answer is no organisation, if too much has its problems than i think going to the opposite end and having none will give a different set - i think rather than taking a position on the line it makes me wonder what transcends this, how can we have something that finds God's best?
in the meantime, i can understand why you are fed up and that might well help to find a way for the rest of us...
Thanks Mak, very helpful distinction, which i agree with you on
Thanks Eric and i appreciate your thoughtful, thinking response.
I find it interesting that both you and tammy reference constantine, in what way do you think that has been bad for the church? Do you mean because of the links to the state? And do you think it has been all bad, are you writing off the last 1700 yrs as a result?
I'm also interested what you mean when you talk about the meeting of christ filled believers in scripture, what do you think isn't there/is different/missing?
And you're right, how much of church has modelled itself after the business world, executives, ceos etc which of course is a recent development in the life of the church - but are we not just replacing one business model with another - as culture changes no one in the business world talks about ceo's and executives any more, now its about teams, networks, flat structures, empowerment etc
In fact a lot of what we talk about in the emerging church - which reflects that maybe we are just reflecting our wider environment rather than anythin particularly spiritual?
I'm not trying to defend the IC, in fact i love your vision of chuch, poetic indeed :)
I confess i am not sure what you meant by the law part at the end, could you help me out on that one and explain further? What church "law" do you feel under?
Thanks very much - and heh likewise if i've been confusing or missed your point, please let me know, i appreciate the conversation, thanks :)
"... constantine, in what way do you think that has been bad for the church? Do you mean because of the links to the state? And do you think it has been all bad, are you writing off the last 1700 yrs as a result?"
It's bad for the church because the church was meant to transcend the kingdoms of this world. Jesus often spoke of the kingdom of God, and he sometimes compared it with the kingdoms of this world, including the Romans who occupied his own country at the time. he did not encourage rebellion against the kingdoms of this world, unless it was the only option in order to follow God. he was actually a pretty good citizen, but there came a point where he had to choose God over country.
since constantine, the church has lost that distinction, and over time we have often believed that the earthly kingdom actually represented God himself. Remember the divine right of kings? the holy roman empire? those ideas are not in line with what Jesus taught.
having said that, no I do not write off the last 1700 years. God is big to work through his church no matter how wrongly we are acting and believing. on the other hand, just because God uses something, does not mean that he gives his approval to everything that the something stands for.
"... what you mean when you talk about the meeting of christ filled believers in scripture, what do you think isn't there/is different/missing?"
I'm not sure that question is for me, but I'd like to say that I don't believe the first 300 years of the church were perfect either. We can learn a lot from them in areas where we are not doing as well, but they also had their weaknesses. just like we do.
"... church has modelled itself after the business world ... as culture changes no one in the business world talks about ceo's and executives any more, now its about teams, networks, flat structures, empowerment etc"
i'd like to clarify that there are those who believe it is a good thing for the church to meet its culture in this way -- that is, by organizing itself according to the most prevalent and successful business models within its own culture. they are right - that this will bring in the people and the money and the success to the church.
it's just that i disagree that the church should look like other cultural institutions. i believe it should be true to itself, and not try to imitate business models. but i don't think it's a horrible sin or anything to do that - it's just that i can't stomach it, and i do better if i avoid those kinds of churches.
does that help at all?
I like Tammy's very first comment best of all: "i have trouble with the religion part of organized religion, rather than the organized part."
I don't want institutionalized religion to die! I want it to reform, in much the way Martin Luther instigated the last time.
Why? "Institutionalized" has such a negative connotation...but really doesn't it mean "organized?" You can be the most postmodern progressive church out there, but I guarantee going forward organization is going to naturally happen, it has to...things in the church must be executed 'decently and in order,' to quote Paul.
I am a lay-leader in one of those institutionalized churches...I admit I am about fed up. Living down here in the South...the so-called 'Bible-belt', we have been on the self-preservation (and ironically self-destructive) feedback circle for years and years. The 'Us 4 and No More mentality' is alive and well. The focus of our church and so many others is internal...how do we make the 'members' happy? My church is very small; members are kept happy by minimizing the rocking of the boat. FOR EXAMPLE: one suggestion of mine regarding something we could do once a month was met with the criticsms: "I think that would appeal more to younger people" or "That sounds awfully Warren-esque." Are you kidding me? Do they not want younger people to be engaged? Is Rick Warren a negative influence?
The biggest thing is no regard or no effort to engage the community other than the antiquated and fruitless visitation ministry where we go and know on doors inviting people to church and asking them if they are believers. Sure this might get someone interested, but ultimately the experience (for both people) is closer to a door-to-door vacuum cleaner sales call.
Anyway, I digress. Institutionalized? Organized, ok....but at least my church has earned the negative connotation. The revolution/reformation needed is that the IC needs to turn its focus from its own self preservation to serving those outside the walls. In short, we have forgotten how to be the salt of the earth. The Kingdom of God is not something we're supposed to waiting to come (as IC is doing), it is something to show forth.
I'll add one last experience...I'm a structural engineer who designs churches for a living...it's AMAZING what churches ask for these days...fitness centers, gyms with running tracks...audio visual systems with all the bells and whistles. These things aren't bad in of themselves, but when millions is spent on making the members happy but homelessness, poverty and all manner of human suffering are thriving nearby, and for that matter around the world, well then where is Christ in all of that? The religion part of organized religion is not Christ's.
"Do they not want younger people to be engaged?"
about 8 years ago, when we tried to take our church through a study of how to engage the postmodern generation, the result was that the older people felt threatened. not only that, but in their fear they even mis-interpreted our words to say that we only wanted the young people to attend our church, and didn't really want the old people to be there.
it was frustrating and sad. I'm glad that experience is in the past.
It is very frustarting and sad. I have friends here that I'm convinced want to honor God with their lives and want to do the right thing, but can't seem to get to the place where realizing that there is something positive outside the present (institutionalized) methods, traditions, etc.
My personal dilemma is that I don't know when to stop trying to reform and just move on for the sake of bearing fruit....I'm not getting any younger! And I desparately want my 7 month old to grow up somewhere where the interest is living the Bible and the words and actions of Christ, not just talking about it and deciding which groups are not the right ones.
Thanks tammy that is a very helpful point - transcending the kingdoms of the world and i'd add in transforming them too. Of couse that is a thin line, transforming from within and transcending when involved is invariable going to lead to instances that you mention...
of course we have the benefit of coming out the other side of the enlightenment project - our world view finds it very hard to see anything good in the holy roman empire or the divine right of kings - as children of the rational revolution our faith switched to empiral rather than empire, with state and church being seen to mix as well as oil and water...
which makes me wonder of course what kingdom fascination besets us in the post christendom world - we no longer see it about worldly kingdoms but instead we have made it about our own personal kingdoms - we do what we want with our life, how we want it and who the hell is anyone to tell us how to live. I fear rather than outer displays of Jesus baptising nation states now we have Jesus bapitising our own indiidualist consumer oriented self fixated lives...
We live, swim, breathe, are formed by a culture in which the Chief Rabbi in the UK, Jonathan Sacks, described the idols of our age as:
... ‘Self esteem without effort, fame without achievement, sex without consequences, wealth without responsibility, pleasure without struggle and experience without commitment’.
and to which a friend of mine added...
"athenticity without discomfort, travel without difference, ethics without sacrfice and commerce without trade..."
If the reformation changed the church from having one pope to allowing everyone to be pope, we have toppled the king so that we can all be kings of our own lives.
I can often end up having a token jesus, who i make follow me - i don't need church, i don't need christians, i don't need to do anything that would make me feel uncomfortable or involve others being involved in my life. it's my kingdom, if i want a new job, or move, or start a new relationship, well i'll just announce it with a fanfare...
Of course at the other end some people need to either opinionate or get endless approval - control the kingdoms of others or have others control theirs. But in reality how much of my life is actually about Jesus transcending and transforming the kingdom of my life, of me chosing to give up/lay down my kingdom to be part of his and become a servant/slave as much as a brother and a son?
Of course that is another article, smile, but thank you for your comments helping me to start thinking/engaging with this...
Adam, thank you very much. You are right, institutional church i guess for me is more closely related to modernity than history - and having grown up in a church very much as you describe i can understand your frustration. One of the reasons i am passionate about deep church/deep ecclesiology is precisely because of the point you make so well - the institutional church needs in many cases a reformation and that is where i am glad we have so many new forms of church over the last couple of decades helping to sow seeds of change. I'm so glad when I see the church of england for instance pioneering 'fresh expressions' and giving permission for experimentation and innovation, largely inspired from seeing how impactful that has been in other communiites outside the institutional church...
I also feel passionately that we can also learn from the institutional church as well - that my obsession with experential and the new of God can get wearing, what at one time seemed liberating becomes its own burden, that the traditional church has much to teach me about mediation and my stream of church much about immediacy - and the christian life we experiencing having both...
Hey Paul, thanks for the response, and I'll try to clarify some of my viewpoint.
Do I think the last 1700 years of Christianity have been a bust? No, but I think in the long run in may prove to be a 40 year wandering in the desert. I'm not the one to make that judgement, but I see things in the way of a true experience of God and the gospel that stem from 1700 years ago.
For example, you offered a nice transition into what I see missing today that I see in scripture: "I can often end up having a token jesus, who i make follow me - i don't need church, i don't need christians, i don't need to do anything that would make me feel uncomfortable or involve others being involved in my life. it's my kingdom, if i want a new job, or move, or start a new relationship, well i'll just announce it with a fanfare..."
This is the mindset that the institutional church encourages. In scripture, I see believers who are involved and committed to one anothers lives. I see them sharing belongings. You will be hard-pressed to find any of what is described in 1st Corinthians in an average Sunday morning meeting. Confession of Sins, testimony and teaching by multiple persons, prophecy by multiple persons...
One thing I am a bit confused about given your article is how you seem to exclude the emergent churches from the IC. Having previously attended Mars Hill in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and currently attending Vintage Faith in Santa Cruz CA., I would include 'most' emergent congregations in the IC. Could you clarify your distinction?
Personally, it's an institution if there is a building, paid staff, and non-profit status.
Thanks Eric, a very good thoughtful response.
I admit I kept the definition of institutional church suitably vague - largely i think because it is a matter of individual judgement [given that there is no church called the institutional church]. Rather than getting into a schema of what is IC, I wanted to focus more on how we often react against what ever defininition we hold and whether in our reaction we create for ourselves some new problems/blind spots rather than resolve what we have perceived as the flaws of church past...
My own personal definition would be to focus more on the traditional denominations, catholic, anglican, orthodox and the modern evenglical churches that have occured in the last 500 yrs. churches that have been round long enough to be venerable institutions and where I, in the emergent church, find myself often reacting too.
I think your question on whether the EC should be included - i certainly think it has strong links with pentecostal/charismatic stream of the church and therefore in its outlook has stronger ties with the institutional church then perhaps we would like to think.
Your definition i think would certainly sweep most churches into the institutional camp - although i personally think that apart from the 'non-profit' status there are examples of paid people and buildings for church to meet in - in which case church has always been institutional...
Of course the posit of my article was to try and move away from one form of church bad or that their is an ideal church - which is why i like your exploration of what is the fruit of the form rather than the form itself. But then again i think that becomes hard to judge - we have so many great christian examples who we know of through history and no doubt many more we don't - does that mean that the form of church has not produced awesome fruit?
Does that mean it becomes then a question of how church acts as a tool to help deconstruct our realities - that the ideas we have are often about our world view? Which of course is so difficult to see because it is the environment we swim in, the air we breathe and the stream of consciousness that we are exposed to in so much of what we do in life...
is the quest for an "authentic form" of christianity just a doomed romantic quest - which each generation tilts don quixote like at - producing a variety of answers across time from mystics, monks, methodists etc :)
So my token Jesus i would say is not encouraged by church - it's encouraged by a postmodern me obsessed culture - where actually going to church can act as a place for rehab and reformation of a different reality or it can act to reinforce it - maybe both at the same time?
Hmmm, in general Paul I think you're too hard on yourself. You're questioning yourself and soul-searching, which is good to a point, but it can become a crippling thing as well.
Have there been excellent Christian examples who have come out of the last 2000 years of the faith? Yes. But how many of those excellent examples, Martin Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc... had to challenge the status quo of their day? In challenging the status quo (and in their cases, starting new denominations), were they stepping out beyond the boundaries of their institutions, and then over time setting up new instituational boundaries where they should have remained in the freedom they had found? Look at Wesley, and you will find his followers actually froze in their beliefs at a certain point and now the Methodist denomination exists in a state of belief that Wesley himself moved beyond before his death.
I guess what I'm saying is, has the Institutional Church produced good fruit? Or has God produced good fruit inspite of the Instituational Church?
thanks Eric, i think i've found over time to start any process of critique with me rather than others - too much naval gazing can be unhelpful, i agree :)
My thought on your fruity question... yes :)
Great article! I am convinced that the argument is not at the surface level polemic. This whole exercise shows us how a system of knowledge can be applied to any community context. That even Gods redeemed are not impervious from the reductionist claims of Enlightenment modernity. Its not the methods of doing church that are the real culprit, but the ways we as Christians use community to "know" the world, the way we produce and consume knowledge of all type in this discourse of doing church.
The blessing of postmodern thought is that it simply makes us aware of the propensity in ANY group situation for certainty, setting up of difference, (clergy/laity, them/us, etc) trajectories of unbridled progress, totalizing unities, our own 'best stories' to reduce from the inherent diversity that exists within our own walls and beyond.
The postmodern simply assists me to unearth from the cultural myth of 'assumed' and realize how much of what we take as gospel is culture made natural. Thats why as soon as you label a new movement, the same problems emerge that need unsettling.
This IN ITSELF is liberating, and is actually empowering people to be better Christianss, in ANY church that He has called you to. Believe me - empowered with this understanding, you will be a breath of fresh air in any social setting!
Thanks Joe, i found that a very helpful and insightful comment. Much appreciated!
(8)
my thoughts?
i have trouble with the religion part of organized religion, rather than the organized part.
i believe, like you, that the church births christians - i disagree with you that the church is the same thing as organized religion. i believe organized religion could close down, and the church would continue and christians would continue to be born.
i do not hope for the closure of organized religion. i believe it serves a purpose for some people. however, it does very little for me at this point in my journey. it is more of a cultural thing for me, than anything. it's also a part of my heritage, which is the primary reason that i feel ambivalence about being less involved than before. but i do not fear that God disapproves of me in this. it's cultural, not spiritual, for me.
Do you see what I'm saying? it's so hard to put into words. I was raised with a strong sense of the invisible church, which informs a lot of what I have written in this reply. think of China, where no churches exist officially, and yet the church is thriving. we could rephrase that as no organized religion exists, yet the church is thriving. i don't believe Jesus came to start an organized religion. he did come to start his church.
Posted by tammy | Posted at 06/14/2007 5:06 AMThanks Tammy, much appreciated. I'm sure God does not disprove of you either and I'm interested to hear more.
What does organised religion mean for you, what are you referencing when you talk about it?
I'm intriguied as even within China churches are organised, they gather and meet in the face of great persucution, whicj might require even more organisation for that to happen in secret?
So how are you defining organised, especially in the light of your comments on the invisible church? Do you see a tension or contradiction between the two? If so what is it?
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/14/2007 6:39 AM"Do we ever stop to think that without the church there would be no Christians?" NO! We, followers of Jesus, ARE the Church. Church doesn't make us Christian. A Church is a body of Believers, not a building or an institution or an organization with a non-profit status.
Having said that, I think this article attempts to address some very key issues, many of which have been swimming around in my own head for some time now. How do we have an honest conversation about the institutional church without slinging mud or unpacking our garbage from a bad experience?
I believe there are some very fundamental problems with the traditional church system, although I have friends who are lead pastors and family members and dear friends who are active and vital members of a traditional church. So, how do I critique these problems without it sounding like I'm calling them "false" or attacking the Bride?
There has to be a place where followers of Jesus can have an honest discourse about the very real problems within our organized church, and to do so with civility and clarity.
For that I am thankful for TheOoze.com and their courage to publish articles such as this one.
I think, to begin with, we have to get beyond the idea that we cannot criticize a man-made system for its flaws and excesses. The Church system is separate from The Church Body. We ARE the Church. I am not critical of the people of God, but I am critical of the system and structure of the organizational unit.
I believe it is time for a structural reform and a paradigm shift. I think the Holy Spirit has already begun to implement such a shift as He has called thousands of people to leave the organized church and start House Churches in their community. People are breaking bread with their actual neighbors. They are opening their living rooms up to people who would never go to an organized church service. The Gospel is being preached and lives are being changed.
Best yet, we are learning again how to be disciples and how to make disciples, as Jesus commanded us.
For me, House Church is the best thing I've ever done with the word "Church" on it.
Check out a little video clip at the link below about the House Church movement in America: http://www.MissionHouseChurch.com
peas, Keith http://www.keithgiles.com
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 06/14/2007 8:55 AMthe unofficial church in China usually doesn't have any of the following:
buildings budgets paid staff marketing campaigns tarket audiences policy and procedures board of directors lawyer and accountant on retainer denominational affiliation newletters mailing lists zoning ordinances hierarchical structures
you get the idea.
what they do have is people who get together and care for each other and love God.
it's so much simpler.
I believe to me, organized religion has a lot to do with the unholy union of church and state, which started off primarily with Constantine in 300 AD, and culminating in the even unholier union of church and business, as seen in North America.
Mind you, there is nothing inherently wrong with state or business. but church is not meant to function like either one.
take any church you are familiar with, remove the things found in the above list, and what you have left is the invisible church. if anything at all is left.
Posted by tammy | Posted at 06/14/2007 4:01 PMThanks Keith, I'm glad that the article helped articulate some of the thoughts that you having. I think it is a very positive purpose to try and converse with our christian brothers and sisters who are in the institutional church. As you so beautifully articulate we are the body of Christ, all followers of Jesus, no matter what form of gathering we assemble in to do it.
In terms of having that conversation i personally find it helpful to acknowedge that I owe a great debt to the institutional church, they are part of my faith heritage and without me growing up to encounter a living reality of God amongst them then I doubt very much i would have become or remained a christian. Despite the flaws that drove me mad there was still something more, the Spirit of God alive and Jesus still building his church...
I wrote something of my journey of remembering my history here: http://paulmayers.blogs.com/my_weblog/files/a_leafy_tale.doc
The other point I find helpful is to remember that the institutional church can offer me as much, if not more, useful critique of my church gathering - that they can highlight my blindspots and it reminds me that I am so often wrong that any church project i am part of will be flawed and imperfect.
House churches are brilliant, vibrant and vital, it takes so many different forms of church to reach so many different people, so i certainly welcome them but I would not to impose that as the only model or even the ideal model for church. It depends on the community, the context, the people, the call of the Spirit etc.
I keep needing to remind myself thought that to think they are without their flaws though would be to ignore our history and maybe realising that will help us to have two way open constructive critique.
I've made a couple of suggestions is there anything that you or anyone else has found particularly helpful in constructive engagement?
Finally, I think your thoughtful comment has highlighted the point i was trying to make when I said that without church we would have no christianity, altho i admit i was being playfully provocative. What i meant by church is not about a building or a denomination but about christians practicing gathering together to live out a life of faith together, to pass on the faith they have received and to encourage, love, care for, spur on and strengthen one another on this journey
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/15/2007 1:43 AMThank you tammy for coming back and helping me to understand more of where you are coming from, although you might have to help me out some more :)
As I read your helpful response it made me think that all churches are organised but that some churches are more organised than others. In that it takes some organisation for people to meet, some setting of place, time etc. That to be a people who you so beautifully wrote, "who get together and care for each other and love God" does not happen spontaneously very often. Maybe that is my experience but i can trace back all the times where that has happened to be being a result of some form of gathering of the body of christ that took organisation for it to happen.
Maybe then it is not so much organised religion but over organised religion that you and I would both have problems with? The mirco management, excessive control etc that can result in having lawyers on retainers :) Some of those things such as paid staff, trustee boards, mailing lists etc can be helpful and useful but maybe the key word is proportionate and sympathethetic to culture/context/leading of the Spirit?
I happen to agree with you about church and state getting into bed with each other, particularly where that has been used as a tool of oppression, control and collaboration. However, in saying that I acknowledge that I can not write off hundreds of yrs of history, that i am part of a chain of faith that stretches back through time that involves people faithfully passing on what they received even if they did so in churches which had closer ties to the state than my world view today would find acceptable. Jesus and the Spirit have continued to build, lead and guide their church even amongst its flaws and failingsa and as they have done for the last 2000 yrs, I have faith that they will continue to do so...
The period of the modern church has made mistakes navigating the waters of power and state and i am sure in a post church world, as we enter a time beyond christendom that we will be equally guilty of making mistakes - perhaps even my fear and anti-institutional bias will actually preclude me from engaging as effectively as i might. That i don't want to see government/state as a poweful force for bringing good and instead want to create it myself in my seperated church bubble. My fear and my pride both conspiring against me serving the kingdom of God as a result...
Perhaps that's one blind spot that the institutional church can continue to challenge me about and one that we can continue to constuctively critique them on?
What do you think? Where am i missing your excellent, much needed, thoughts?
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/15/2007 2:17 AMPaul, thanks for the good article. I think that you have captured something really big here. I think that many of us who had bad church experiences or who had been burned by religion were easily drawn to the emergent movement. While I don't want to minimize what others have gone through, I think that many of us need to learn how to forgive those in the past -- whatever the wrong -- and seek the will of God and go forward. Otherwise, we are just reacting against something rather than actually moving in faith. That is just my opinion, however. Others may feel differently.
What is going to happen when a christian gets burned by a church or small group that is influenced by emergence? Where are they going to go then? How will they react?
Posted by Holly | Posted at 06/15/2007 11:48 AM"Maybe then it is not so much organised religion but over organised religion that you and I would both have problems with?"
agreed. the problem is, i am weary from 25 years of looking for a church that doesn't over-organize. the only place i find it, is in the times when people of God get together, and they don't think they are "having church", but they are. as soon as they call it church, it's as if this obsessive need to organize overtakes them. we have this cultural definition of church, which i believe kills some of the life as soon as the label is applied.
"Jesus and the Spirit have continued to build, lead and guide their church even amongst its flaws "
I agree with you there too. But a lot of that building has happened in spite of our attempts to organize God. and some of the best building has come from places where there was very little organization.
so the question is, how much is too much?
"instead want to create it myself in my seperated church bubble."
i don't of the invisible church that way. instead i think of it as infiltrating its culture, having more effect upon the world around it than the organized church it able to have, simply because people don't think of it as "church".
Posted by tammy | Posted at 06/15/2007 8:14 PMtammy and paul - I think there is a difference between organized and programmed. There is a difference between religion and religious. The differences might be slight but it's an important tension to live in if we're going to do the mission and live it well. Posted by Makeesha | Posted at 06/16/2007 8:16 AM
Hey Paul, I just wanted to start off by saying that I found your article to be thought provoking, and soul searching. I also found that it did not cover my reasons for wanting the IC to die.
I have found that my main criticism of the IC has been motivation. Long-term goals. From my perspective, the IC is little more than the shards of Catholicism trying to accomplish the same thing Catholicism had accomplished previously (though obviously perversely). I'm echoing Tammy here when I talk about the IC being spawned from Constantine in 300AD. This motivation is flawed from my personal experience, education, and perspective.
My second criticism has been what I feel the biblical account of the Christ-filled life should reflect. I have never experienced an IC 'service' that has even approached the kind of meeting of Christ-filled believers in scripture. Were there problems? Of course! Was it a different time? Of course! But I think we need to look at what we all deeply long for, look at what the IC service is providing, and say, "Is God able to meet my need through this?"
And to this I say 'no'. Where 'Elder' is a title held like "executive", and does not necessarily mean 'elder in the faith'. Where 'pastor' means "CEO", and does not necessarily mean he is serving the flock.
I believe what people are most looking for is a chance to make genuine friendships with like-minded people. To Practice their faith in a place where questions and doubts can be aired, while encouragment and revelation can be shared. (I'm a poet and I didn't know it!)
I think people become intentionally obtuse when a complaint, doubt, or rejection of the IC is expressed. "Don't we need structure? You can't avoid it..." It isn't about 'being structured', or 'having things organized' that is the problem. It's freedom structures and organizations in the political sense I believe. In the Law sense really.
I think of a law like a layer of plastic over my head. Right now I am under God, USA, California, and Santa Cruz laws. That makes 4 layers of law. When I step into 'church', I am under God, church, USA, California, and Santa Cruz laws. I am more oppressed inside than I was outside. This should not be.
I hope this has not been too terribly confusing, and if I have said anything that was too abrasive or aggressive please let me know so I can explain myself and we can forgive each other. =^)
Posted by Eric | Posted at 06/16/2007 2:18 PMThanks Holly, much appreciated.
I think reaction can be a v good thing, in fact i think the emerging church conversation is a very good thing too. My feeling however is that we can spend a lot of time still trying to prove that we in our emerging conversation have become the 'true' church and those in the institutional church have been left behind. My main feeling is that we are still repeating the mistake of the modern era of wanting to be right/win rather than wanting to be good/bless.
Being pathological about the flaws of the institutional church will not help us hear - just as if you want to get well medically you see a doctor not a pathologist ;)
And i agree with you, sooner or later we will start to see flaws in the emerging church and what do we then - watch as another generation claims to be the emerged church and us emerging folk are mere institutional dinosaurs??? :)
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/16/2007 5:02 PMThanks Tammy, I'm sorry you've experienced 25 yrs of over organised church. I guess that can be the problem what ever the chiurch, emerging, institutional or whatever.
I'm not convinced that the answer is no organisation, if too much has its problems than i think going to the opposite end and having none will give a different set - i think rather than taking a position on the line it makes me wonder what transcends this, how can we have something that finds God's best?
in the meantime, i can understand why you are fed up and that might well help to find a way for the rest of us...
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/16/2007 6:09 PMThanks Mak, very helpful distinction, which i agree with you on Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/16/2007 6:16 PM
Thanks Eric and i appreciate your thoughtful, thinking response.
I find it interesting that both you and tammy reference constantine, in what way do you think that has been bad for the church? Do you mean because of the links to the state? And do you think it has been all bad, are you writing off the last 1700 yrs as a result?
I'm also interested what you mean when you talk about the meeting of christ filled believers in scripture, what do you think isn't there/is different/missing?
And you're right, how much of church has modelled itself after the business world, executives, ceos etc which of course is a recent development in the life of the church - but are we not just replacing one business model with another - as culture changes no one in the business world talks about ceo's and executives any more, now its about teams, networks, flat structures, empowerment etc
In fact a lot of what we talk about in the emerging church - which reflects that maybe we are just reflecting our wider environment rather than anythin particularly spiritual?
I'm not trying to defend the IC, in fact i love your vision of chuch, poetic indeed :)
I confess i am not sure what you meant by the law part at the end, could you help me out on that one and explain further? What church "law" do you feel under?
Thanks very much - and heh likewise if i've been confusing or missed your point, please let me know, i appreciate the conversation, thanks :)
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/16/2007 7:21 PM"... constantine, in what way do you think that has been bad for the church? Do you mean because of the links to the state? And do you think it has been all bad, are you writing off the last 1700 yrs as a result?"
It's bad for the church because the church was meant to transcend the kingdoms of this world. Jesus often spoke of the kingdom of God, and he sometimes compared it with the kingdoms of this world, including the Romans who occupied his own country at the time. he did not encourage rebellion against the kingdoms of this world, unless it was the only option in order to follow God. he was actually a pretty good citizen, but there came a point where he had to choose God over country.
since constantine, the church has lost that distinction, and over time we have often believed that the earthly kingdom actually represented God himself. Remember the divine right of kings? the holy roman empire? those ideas are not in line with what Jesus taught.
having said that, no I do not write off the last 1700 years. God is big to work through his church no matter how wrongly we are acting and believing. on the other hand, just because God uses something, does not mean that he gives his approval to everything that the something stands for.
"... what you mean when you talk about the meeting of christ filled believers in scripture, what do you think isn't there/is different/missing?"
I'm not sure that question is for me, but I'd like to say that I don't believe the first 300 years of the church were perfect either. We can learn a lot from them in areas where we are not doing as well, but they also had their weaknesses. just like we do.
"... church has modelled itself after the business world ... as culture changes no one in the business world talks about ceo's and executives any more, now its about teams, networks, flat structures, empowerment etc"
i'd like to clarify that there are those who believe it is a good thing for the church to meet its culture in this way -- that is, by organizing itself according to the most prevalent and successful business models within its own culture. they are right - that this will bring in the people and the money and the success to the church.
it's just that i disagree that the church should look like other cultural institutions. i believe it should be true to itself, and not try to imitate business models. but i don't think it's a horrible sin or anything to do that - it's just that i can't stomach it, and i do better if i avoid those kinds of churches.
does that help at all?
Posted by tammy | Posted at 06/17/2007 11:14 AMI like Tammy's very first comment best of all: "i have trouble with the religion part of organized religion, rather than the organized part."
I don't want institutionalized religion to die! I want it to reform, in much the way Martin Luther instigated the last time.
Why? "Institutionalized" has such a negative connotation...but really doesn't it mean "organized?" You can be the most postmodern progressive church out there, but I guarantee going forward organization is going to naturally happen, it has to...things in the church must be executed 'decently and in order,' to quote Paul.
I am a lay-leader in one of those institutionalized churches...I admit I am about fed up. Living down here in the South...the so-called 'Bible-belt', we have been on the self-preservation (and ironically self-destructive) feedback circle for years and years. The 'Us 4 and No More mentality' is alive and well. The focus of our church and so many others is internal...how do we make the 'members' happy? My church is very small; members are kept happy by minimizing the rocking of the boat. FOR EXAMPLE: one suggestion of mine regarding something we could do once a month was met with the criticsms: "I think that would appeal more to younger people" or "That sounds awfully Warren-esque." Are you kidding me? Do they not want younger people to be engaged? Is Rick Warren a negative influence?
The biggest thing is no regard or no effort to engage the community other than the antiquated and fruitless visitation ministry where we go and know on doors inviting people to church and asking them if they are believers. Sure this might get someone interested, but ultimately the experience (for both people) is closer to a door-to-door vacuum cleaner sales call.
Anyway, I digress. Institutionalized? Organized, ok....but at least my church has earned the negative connotation. The revolution/reformation needed is that the IC needs to turn its focus from its own self preservation to serving those outside the walls. In short, we have forgotten how to be the salt of the earth. The Kingdom of God is not something we're supposed to waiting to come (as IC is doing), it is something to show forth.
I'll add one last experience...I'm a structural engineer who designs churches for a living...it's AMAZING what churches ask for these days...fitness centers, gyms with running tracks...audio visual systems with all the bells and whistles. These things aren't bad in of themselves, but when millions is spent on making the members happy but homelessness, poverty and all manner of human suffering are thriving nearby, and for that matter around the world, well then where is Christ in all of that? The religion part of organized religion is not Christ's.
Posted by Adam | Posted at 06/17/2007 7:24 PM"Do they not want younger people to be engaged?"
about 8 years ago, when we tried to take our church through a study of how to engage the postmodern generation, the result was that the older people felt threatened. not only that, but in their fear they even mis-interpreted our words to say that we only wanted the young people to attend our church, and didn't really want the old people to be there.
it was frustrating and sad. I'm glad that experience is in the past.
Posted by tammy | Posted at 06/17/2007 7:31 PMIt is very frustarting and sad. I have friends here that I'm convinced want to honor God with their lives and want to do the right thing, but can't seem to get to the place where realizing that there is something positive outside the present (institutionalized) methods, traditions, etc.
My personal dilemma is that I don't know when to stop trying to reform and just move on for the sake of bearing fruit....I'm not getting any younger! And I desparately want my 7 month old to grow up somewhere where the interest is living the Bible and the words and actions of Christ, not just talking about it and deciding which groups are not the right ones.
Posted by Adam | Posted at 06/17/2007 7:46 PMThanks tammy that is a very helpful point - transcending the kingdoms of the world and i'd add in transforming them too. Of couse that is a thin line, transforming from within and transcending when involved is invariable going to lead to instances that you mention...
of course we have the benefit of coming out the other side of the enlightenment project - our world view finds it very hard to see anything good in the holy roman empire or the divine right of kings - as children of the rational revolution our faith switched to empiral rather than empire, with state and church being seen to mix as well as oil and water...
which makes me wonder of course what kingdom fascination besets us in the post christendom world - we no longer see it about worldly kingdoms but instead we have made it about our own personal kingdoms - we do what we want with our life, how we want it and who the hell is anyone to tell us how to live. I fear rather than outer displays of Jesus baptising nation states now we have Jesus bapitising our own indiidualist consumer oriented self fixated lives...
We live, swim, breathe, are formed by a culture in which the Chief Rabbi in the UK, Jonathan Sacks, described the idols of our age as:
... ‘Self esteem without effort, fame without achievement, sex without consequences, wealth without responsibility, pleasure without struggle and experience without commitment’.
and to which a friend of mine added...
"athenticity without discomfort, travel without difference, ethics without sacrfice and commerce without trade..."
If the reformation changed the church from having one pope to allowing everyone to be pope, we have toppled the king so that we can all be kings of our own lives.
I can often end up having a token jesus, who i make follow me - i don't need church, i don't need christians, i don't need to do anything that would make me feel uncomfortable or involve others being involved in my life. it's my kingdom, if i want a new job, or move, or start a new relationship, well i'll just announce it with a fanfare...
Of course at the other end some people need to either opinionate or get endless approval - control the kingdoms of others or have others control theirs. But in reality how much of my life is actually about Jesus transcending and transforming the kingdom of my life, of me chosing to give up/lay down my kingdom to be part of his and become a servant/slave as much as a brother and a son?
Of course that is another article, smile, but thank you for your comments helping me to start thinking/engaging with this...
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/18/2007 7:28 AMAdam, thank you very much. You are right, institutional church i guess for me is more closely related to modernity than history - and having grown up in a church very much as you describe i can understand your frustration. One of the reasons i am passionate about deep church/deep ecclesiology is precisely because of the point you make so well - the institutional church needs in many cases a reformation and that is where i am glad we have so many new forms of church over the last couple of decades helping to sow seeds of change. I'm so glad when I see the church of england for instance pioneering 'fresh expressions' and giving permission for experimentation and innovation, largely inspired from seeing how impactful that has been in other communiites outside the institutional church...
I also feel passionately that we can also learn from the institutional church as well - that my obsession with experential and the new of God can get wearing, what at one time seemed liberating becomes its own burden, that the traditional church has much to teach me about mediation and my stream of church much about immediacy - and the christian life we experiencing having both...
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/18/2007 7:42 AMHey Paul, thanks for the response, and I'll try to clarify some of my viewpoint.
Do I think the last 1700 years of Christianity have been a bust? No, but I think in the long run in may prove to be a 40 year wandering in the desert. I'm not the one to make that judgement, but I see things in the way of a true experience of God and the gospel that stem from 1700 years ago.
For example, you offered a nice transition into what I see missing today that I see in scripture: "I can often end up having a token jesus, who i make follow me - i don't need church, i don't need christians, i don't need to do anything that would make me feel uncomfortable or involve others being involved in my life. it's my kingdom, if i want a new job, or move, or start a new relationship, well i'll just announce it with a fanfare..."
This is the mindset that the institutional church encourages. In scripture, I see believers who are involved and committed to one anothers lives. I see them sharing belongings. You will be hard-pressed to find any of what is described in 1st Corinthians in an average Sunday morning meeting. Confession of Sins, testimony and teaching by multiple persons, prophecy by multiple persons...
One thing I am a bit confused about given your article is how you seem to exclude the emergent churches from the IC. Having previously attended Mars Hill in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and currently attending Vintage Faith in Santa Cruz CA., I would include 'most' emergent congregations in the IC. Could you clarify your distinction?
Personally, it's an institution if there is a building, paid staff, and non-profit status.
Posted by Eric | Posted at 06/18/2007 9:34 AMThanks Eric, a very good thoughtful response.
I admit I kept the definition of institutional church suitably vague - largely i think because it is a matter of individual judgement [given that there is no church called the institutional church]. Rather than getting into a schema of what is IC, I wanted to focus more on how we often react against what ever defininition we hold and whether in our reaction we create for ourselves some new problems/blind spots rather than resolve what we have perceived as the flaws of church past...
My own personal definition would be to focus more on the traditional denominations, catholic, anglican, orthodox and the modern evenglical churches that have occured in the last 500 yrs. churches that have been round long enough to be venerable institutions and where I, in the emergent church, find myself often reacting too.
I think your question on whether the EC should be included - i certainly think it has strong links with pentecostal/charismatic stream of the church and therefore in its outlook has stronger ties with the institutional church then perhaps we would like to think.
Your definition i think would certainly sweep most churches into the institutional camp - although i personally think that apart from the 'non-profit' status there are examples of paid people and buildings for church to meet in - in which case church has always been institutional...
Of course the posit of my article was to try and move away from one form of church bad or that their is an ideal church - which is why i like your exploration of what is the fruit of the form rather than the form itself. But then again i think that becomes hard to judge - we have so many great christian examples who we know of through history and no doubt many more we don't - does that mean that the form of church has not produced awesome fruit?
Does that mean it becomes then a question of how church acts as a tool to help deconstruct our realities - that the ideas we have are often about our world view? Which of course is so difficult to see because it is the environment we swim in, the air we breathe and the stream of consciousness that we are exposed to in so much of what we do in life...
is the quest for an "authentic form" of christianity just a doomed romantic quest - which each generation tilts don quixote like at - producing a variety of answers across time from mystics, monks, methodists etc :)
So my token Jesus i would say is not encouraged by church - it's encouraged by a postmodern me obsessed culture - where actually going to church can act as a place for rehab and reformation of a different reality or it can act to reinforce it - maybe both at the same time?
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/19/2007 7:28 AMHmmm, in general Paul I think you're too hard on yourself. You're questioning yourself and soul-searching, which is good to a point, but it can become a crippling thing as well.
Have there been excellent Christian examples who have come out of the last 2000 years of the faith? Yes. But how many of those excellent examples, Martin Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc... had to challenge the status quo of their day? In challenging the status quo (and in their cases, starting new denominations), were they stepping out beyond the boundaries of their institutions, and then over time setting up new instituational boundaries where they should have remained in the freedom they had found? Look at Wesley, and you will find his followers actually froze in their beliefs at a certain point and now the Methodist denomination exists in a state of belief that Wesley himself moved beyond before his death.
I guess what I'm saying is, has the Institutional Church produced good fruit? Or has God produced good fruit inspite of the Instituational Church?
Posted by Eric | Posted at 06/19/2007 11:25 AMthanks Eric, i think i've found over time to start any process of critique with me rather than others - too much naval gazing can be unhelpful, i agree :)
My thought on your fruity question... yes :)
Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/19/2007 10:53 PMGreat article! I am convinced that the argument is not at the surface level polemic. This whole exercise shows us how a system of knowledge can be applied to any community context. That even Gods redeemed are not impervious from the reductionist claims of Enlightenment modernity. Its not the methods of doing church that are the real culprit, but the ways we as Christians use community to "know" the world, the way we produce and consume knowledge of all type in this discourse of doing church.
The blessing of postmodern thought is that it simply makes us aware of the propensity in ANY group situation for certainty, setting up of difference, (clergy/laity, them/us, etc) trajectories of unbridled progress, totalizing unities, our own 'best stories' to reduce from the inherent diversity that exists within our own walls and beyond.
The postmodern simply assists me to unearth from the cultural myth of 'assumed' and realize how much of what we take as gospel is culture made natural. Thats why as soon as you label a new movement, the same problems emerge that need unsettling.
This IN ITSELF is liberating, and is actually empowering people to be better Christianss, in ANY church that He has called you to. Believe me - empowered with this understanding, you will be a breath of fresh air in any social setting!
Posted by Joe D | Posted at 06/21/2007 8:15 PMThanks Joe, i found that a very helpful and insightful comment. Much appreciated! Posted by Paul | Posted at 06/22/2007 8:13 AM