|
 |
|
|
|
I have been following the conversations on theooze.com regarding “the death of the institutional church," and decided that, even though I agree with many of the criticisms of large churches and have experienced some of their problems first hand, a few words in defense of the more traditional church model are in order.
I’m a new poster to this forum, so let me begin by giving a bit of background about my own spiritual history. I was raised Catholic, avoided church and God for most of my adult life, finally “wised up” and returned to church as a Catholic, overslept and missed Mass one Sunday and went to a “progressive evangelical” church instead, and caught fire there. I moved to another state, went church-shopping and passed through dead churches large and small until I found one that was awake enough to suit me, only to realize that, at age 55, I was too elderly to be relevant there. My current church is my three couches and some of the other graying and balding expatriates from the “youth ministry for people with jobs.” It’ll do until something better evolves.
I find the movement often refered to as “the emerging church” to be thrilling beyond my capacity for words. I believe with all my heart that God absolutely loves it when we ask big questions about our beliefs and religious institutions, as long as we’re not asking those questions to avoid the truth, as I confess I did for so many years. And the established, “modern era” churches which do not make a priority of asking themselves hard questions about their practices in today’s world will fade into obscurity, and deservedly so. Also slated for extinction are the newer denominations that don’t learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.
Old folks have old sayings, however, and one of my personal favorites is, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water.” I think that heralding the collapse of the institutional church at large is at least premature, and probably not very desirable on a global scale, given the realities of human nature. I have several reasons to believe that institutional Christian churches will continue to be a viable option for believers for the long haul.
I know that one does not necessarily need seminary training and a seal of approval from a large, organized church to be a wise and effective Christian leader, and that there are, regrettably, many seminary graduates who are more a part of the problem than of the solution. But I think a presumption that, if all of the institutional churches die off, each of the millions of “churchlets” that spring up will be blessed with equally wise leadership and equally sound theology, is wishful thinking at best. While we are right to look back at the early years of Christianity as one of the most exciting and significant periods in human history, we should also remember that there was a lot of theological chaos among the churches of the time.
Most 21st-Century Christians are in agreement that what we refer to as the New Testament is both authentic and authoritative. Had an institution not arisen to make decisions about which writings were valid, we might well be studying forty (or four hundred) “gospels” instead of the four we have today. While we now have a generally agreed-upon set of sacred texts, the way these texts are interpreted varies among denominations. (Take, for instance, the very different ways in which American Episcopalians and Southern Baptists approach the subject of homosexuality.)
I’m not for a minute suggesting that Christian men and women should be condemned for breaking away from larger bodies and forming their own, independent communities of faith, especially where they are being ill-led and/or spiritually stifled in larger churches. I’m merely pointing out that the soundness of these newly-formed communities will be determined not so much by their independence, but by the knowledge, wisdom and discernment of both leaders and congregants. Furthermore, where problems such as flawed teachings and abusive or predatory behaviors arise, there is no (earthly) accountability outside of these small communities unless civil laws are violated.
We live in an age where communications technology allows small groups to share information and issues with one another on a real-time basis, so small faith communities certainly have the ability to network with one another, and to hold eachother in check with regards to scriptural accuracies and leaders’ behaviors. But when groups of small churches avail themselves of the opportunity join in a sort of accountability network, to agree to a common perspective on scripture and a shared code of conduct, they have formed, well, an institutional church, haven’t they? The only thing that’s missing is the buildings.
Ah, the buildings. The big, ostentatious, collection-plate-gobbling buildings. I’m glad you brought that subject up.
Millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ in nations like China and North Korea, and the stricter Islamic states, live every minute of their lives wishing that they could do, once or twice a week, what we Americans take so much for granted that we quibble over the details- to publicly gather together, in corporate worship, as followers of the Risen Lord. They form home churches because, to survive being Christians, they must remain invisible to civil authority.
Invisibility is not an asset to Christians in a nation where their freedoms to worship are constitutionally guaranteed. We are called not just to reach out to others, but to take them in when they reach out to us. Someone who is aimlessly driving around, spiritually lost and at his or her wits’ end, will not find my friends and me as we’re meeting in my home. Stories abound throught the free world where the only thing that stood between a damaged human being and suicide or some other sad, irrevocable decision was a church. With a sign. And an open door.
There is much good to be done, now and in the years ahead, by the valiant souls among us who “step outside the box” and find ways to fill the spaces that traditional denominations miss. But where the business of reformation becomes as much of a present reality to institutional churches as it is an historical one, God will be glorified there as well. And with their larger numbers and larger budgets, their potential, if realized, to do great things in His name is enormous.
Our Father in Heaven is pleased when we take the time to gather together and offer Him worship and praise, whether it’s ten of us in a living room or a thousand of us in a cathedral. My five siblings and their numerous offspring are all faithful Roman Catholics, members of the Mother Of All Ecclesiastical Institutions. They are also the sweetest, kindest, most consistently round-the-clock Christian men and women I’ve ever had the honor of knowing. After all, it’s not nearly as important, to us or to our Creator, where or how we “do church” as it is how we each “do life” between services, large or small.
|
Mike,
Thank you for this well thought out and graceful presentation of your view of the institutional church. As 18 plus year veteran of youth ministry, primarily in the United Methodist Church I have been caught in the tug of war between the expressions of faith found in the emerging church and the institutional. I do not believe that God has no use the intistution and I do not believe that being emerging is a guarantee of God's blessing either.
God has and always will respond to those who worship Him in obedient submission and love Him with all of who they are. I have found such wonderful saints in both the emerging and insititution. I ave also found mean, angry, hurtful ones in both arenas. The stream that we find to Christ is not nearly as relevant as allowing Him to rise up in us and live through us. That happens everday in the Body of Christ regardless of which memebr it is. Thank you for reminding me and encouraging my heart with your article.
Virgil
GREAT article. It's very refreshing to hear someone speak about the positive potential that traditional churches have for the future.
I must admit that my outlook on traditional churches in the future is bleak, but I hope that you're right and I'm wrong!!!
-Curtis
Virgil and Curtis,
Thanks for the kind words. I'd hoped to encourage a few folks working within the IC who might be questioning their chosen paths. If I succeeded, it was well worth the time. As I noted in the article, I'm hosting a home church right now, and it's not a perfect structure either.
Peace, Mike
Mike - I also appreciated your article very much. This is my struggle as a pastor who has found herself bored in the institutional church, and yet there is an awakening there. Adam Walker-Cleaveland calls himself a Loyal Radical, and I think there are many of us out there.
Your best point: sometimes the seminary graduates (and in my humble opinion seminaries) are part of the problem. Absolutely.
Mike, I'm involved in a stream that is labeled more missional than emerging or traditional. I just think if more followers of Christ spoke and move forward in this conversation as humbly and generously as you do in this article, the church at large would be in a better place. So, thanks for modeling healthy dialogue and for the fresh encouragment that brings to me!
There is a quote by C.S. Lewis: "When I first became a Christian, about fourteen years ago, I thought that I could do it on my own, by retiring to my rooms and reading theology, and wouldn;t go to the churches and Gospel Halls; I disliked very much their hymns which I considered to be fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music. But as I went on I saw the merit of it. I came up against different people of quite different outlooks and different education, and then gradually my conceit just began peeling off. I realized that the hymns (which were just sixth-rate music) were, nevertheless, being sung with devotion and benefit by an old saint in elastic-side boots in the opposite pew, and then you realize that you aren't fit to clean those boots. It gets you out of your solitary conceit."
While the so-called traditional church has it's problems, so do emerging churches and house churches. A different structure or form doesn't necessarily mean people will be more devoted, or more loving. I've been to some traditional churches where people are really loving. My current church is closer to emerging than traditional, but I still ultimately have to ask myself whether I am loving God with all my heart and loving my neighbor as myself. Ultimately, we are all part of the Body of Christ, and whether in a traditional or emerging church setting, we are either living out our faith or we're not...
Well stated. Thank you, Mike.
You mentioned Old Foks and Old Phrases . . . well, here is one. "Every tub stands on its own bottom." and another that is like it, "Every man must carry his own hide to market." Weird, I know. But the meanings are as simple as "The proof is in the pudding." It doesn't matter how a person or a church group positions itself with a label or an ideology, or even a movement or set of ideas. The only thing that matters is whether the church (be it traditional or a home church, or whatever . . .) that it is "becoming what it is intended by Christ to be. tends it to be.
Everyone has to stand on their own. There is no such thing as getting into heaven on someone else's coat-tails. All our posturing to be the "coolest church" that compares itself with others so it can prove it is "better than the others" is just prideful silliness. We have to prove that we are Christ's followers by the kind of life we live, not by the ideas we espouse, or by the group to which we think we belong . . . as you have so graciously shown us in the thoughtful way you have written your comments. Thank you. Your entry is much appreciated.
The Taditional church has the problems it has only because people are in it. Give the Emerging churches and House churches enough time and all the same foibles of the Traditional churches will surface in them too. This is just the way of all flesh. :-) That is why a generous spirit toward each other is the better path . . . or so it seems to me. :-)
|
|
|
|
(9)
Mike,
Thank you for this well thought out and graceful presentation of your view of the institutional church. As 18 plus year veteran of youth ministry, primarily in the United Methodist Church I have been caught in the tug of war between the expressions of faith found in the emerging church and the institutional. I do not believe that God has no use the intistution and I do not believe that being emerging is a guarantee of God's blessing either.
God has and always will respond to those who worship Him in obedient submission and love Him with all of who they are. I have found such wonderful saints in both the emerging and insititution. I ave also found mean, angry, hurtful ones in both arenas. The stream that we find to Christ is not nearly as relevant as allowing Him to rise up in us and live through us. That happens everday in the Body of Christ regardless of which memebr it is. Thank you for reminding me and encouraging my heart with your article.
Virgil
Posted by virgil | Posted at 07/23/2007 9:43 AMGREAT article. It's very refreshing to hear someone speak about the positive potential that traditional churches have for the future.
I must admit that my outlook on traditional churches in the future is bleak, but I hope that you're right and I'm wrong!!!
-Curtis
Posted by Curtis | Posted at 07/31/2007 1:19 PMVirgil and Curtis,
Thanks for the kind words. I'd hoped to encourage a few folks working within the IC who might be questioning their chosen paths. If I succeeded, it was well worth the time. As I noted in the article, I'm hosting a home church right now, and it's not a perfect structure either.
Peace, Mike
Posted by mike | Posted at 07/31/2007 3:41 PMMike - I also appreciated your article very much. This is my struggle as a pastor who has found herself bored in the institutional church, and yet there is an awakening there. Adam Walker-Cleaveland calls himself a Loyal Radical, and I think there are many of us out there.
Your best point: sometimes the seminary graduates (and in my humble opinion seminaries) are part of the problem. Absolutely.
Posted by Jan | Posted at 07/31/2007 7:53 PMMike, I'm involved in a stream that is labeled more missional than emerging or traditional. I just think if more followers of Christ spoke and move forward in this conversation as humbly and generously as you do in this article, the church at large would be in a better place. So, thanks for modeling healthy dialogue and for the fresh encouragment that brings to me! Posted by Ryan | Posted at 08/05/2007 1:25 PM
There is a quote by C.S. Lewis: "When I first became a Christian, about fourteen years ago, I thought that I could do it on my own, by retiring to my rooms and reading theology, and wouldn;t go to the churches and Gospel Halls; I disliked very much their hymns which I considered to be fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music. But as I went on I saw the merit of it. I came up against different people of quite different outlooks and different education, and then gradually my conceit just began peeling off. I realized that the hymns (which were just sixth-rate music) were, nevertheless, being sung with devotion and benefit by an old saint in elastic-side boots in the opposite pew, and then you realize that you aren't fit to clean those boots. It gets you out of your solitary conceit."
While the so-called traditional church has it's problems, so do emerging churches and house churches. A different structure or form doesn't necessarily mean people will be more devoted, or more loving. I've been to some traditional churches where people are really loving. My current church is closer to emerging than traditional, but I still ultimately have to ask myself whether I am loving God with all my heart and loving my neighbor as myself. Ultimately, we are all part of the Body of Christ, and whether in a traditional or emerging church setting, we are either living out our faith or we're not...
Posted by Seth | Posted at 08/15/2007 8:12 PMWell stated. Thank you, Mike.
You mentioned Old Foks and Old Phrases . . . well, here is one. "Every tub stands on its own bottom." and another that is like it, "Every man must carry his own hide to market." Weird, I know. But the meanings are as simple as "The proof is in the pudding." It doesn't matter how a person or a church group positions itself with a label or an ideology, or even a movement or set of ideas. The only thing that matters is whether the church (be it traditional or a home church, or whatever . . .) that it is "becoming what it is intended by Christ to be. tends it to be.
Everyone has to stand on their own. There is no such thing as getting into heaven on someone else's coat-tails. All our posturing to be the "coolest church" that compares itself with others so it can prove it is "better than the others" is just prideful silliness. We have to prove that we are Christ's followers by the kind of life we live, not by the ideas we espouse, or by the group to which we think we belong . . . as you have so graciously shown us in the thoughtful way you have written your comments. Thank you. Your entry is much appreciated.
The Taditional church has the problems it has only because people are in it. Give the Emerging churches and House churches enough time and all the same foibles of the Traditional churches will surface in them too. This is just the way of all flesh. :-) That is why a generous spirit toward each other is the better path . . . or so it seems to me. :-)
Posted by Dan | Posted at 08/16/2007 2:21 AM