Thoughts on the Institutional Church
A pastoral colleague of mine made this comment recently:
I think that the institutional church is on the way out…How can it not be? The institution has become more interested in self-preservation than it is in the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Another colleague put it this way:
The United Methodist system often gets in the way of authentic ministry. When administrative processes become more important than reaching souls, we wind up becoming idolatrous about our denomination’s way of doing things.
Still another colleague offered these thoughts:
Our [United Methodist] general boards and agencies have become painfully out of touch with the ministry of our annual conferences. Our annual conferences have become painfully out of touch with the ministry of our local churches. And our local churches have become painfully out of touch with what’s going on in their communities. It’s time for us to let go of the institutional church and get back to the life-changing, heart-to-heart ministry that Jesus initiated.
I share these comments with you because of the way that they shed light upon an ecclesiastical trend that is at once both revelatory and troubling. The trend of which I speak can best be described as an eagerness to demonize the institutional.
I will acknowledge at the outset that, as a District Superintendent in the United Methodist tradition, the office that I occupy, in the eyes of many, is a primary cog in the institutional machinery that is in question. I am not blind to the complexity of this, nor am I naïve about the possibility of sounding unnecessarily defensive or self-preserving in a blog post like this one. Believe me, the institutional nature of my current ministry has become frighteningly clear to me over the last year.
First, allow me to offer a word of affirmation concerning the anti-institutional trend that I have described. At its best, this trend is a desperately-needed prophetic critique of structures, leadership, and administrative processes that must consistently be held accountable for their function. This is where the postmodern skepticism concerning anything that smells “institutional” serves the Body of Christ quite well. It is a skepticism that prevents us from bowing at the altar of any denomination’s polity.
Likewise, the anti-institutional trend helps the church to remember that the heart of ministry is not to be found in parliamentary procedure or in an elaborate meeting agenda or even in the successful completion of the year-end statistical reports (cue the whining!). Rather, as the anti-institutional trend makes clear, the heart of ministry is to be found in ever-deepening relationships; in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and caring for the marginalized; and in helping the lost to find their way home to Jesus Christ. If institutional components become stumbling blocks in the way of such ministry, then the anti-institutional trend is right on target: It’s time to dismantle the institution for the purpose of recovering the church’s true mission.
But, to be fair, allow me to point the critique in the other direction for a moment. Here is what troubles me about some of the manifestations of the anti-institutional trend:
First, in my experience (which is my only perspective concerning the issue), the critique of the institution is often voiced most loudly and most angrily by those who have become resentful of the way in which the institution has attempted to hold them accountable. Granted, there are certainly times in which institutional accountability feels like little more than jumping through vapid administrative hoops. On the other hand, institutional accountability, at its best, can become a communal means by which to keep people in proper alignment with the covenants by which they live.
Therefore, when offering a critique of the institutional church, it is imperative for the agent of the critique to be very attentive to his/her motives. A critique that emerges from clear and level-headed discernment can become a prophetic corrective. But a critique that emerges from resentment often ends up sounding more like an agenda-laden venting of one’s spleen.
Second, the anti-institutional trend is often much heavier on the critique than it is on meaningful solutions. If the United Methodist institution were to go away, for example, I would have to go and find a real job, to be sure. (Is anyone hiring, by the way?! Are there any comic book stores that need an extra employee?!) But what would remain in the absence of the existing ecclesiastical institution? How would the work of UMCOR continue in Haiti? How would people be encouraged and equipped to respond to a call to ministry? How would we support missions, local church food pantries and clothes closets, and the formation of meaningful curriculum? How would pastors be trained, sent, and appointed? Would we leave this all to individual inspiration and the formation of “house churches?” If so, what would be the institutional mechanism to connect individuals with ministries that would help them to invest in something that is bigger than their particular corner of the world?
In the current anti-institutional trend, quite frankly, I hear far more random criticism than I do helpful answers to these questions.
Third, the demonization of the institution often overlooks the fact that the concept of “institution,” in and of itself, is neither inherently evil nor necessarily contradictory to the ministry of Jesus Christ. The word “institution,” after all, is a derivative of the Latin “instituere” which means simply “to set up.” Setting up is a discipline that Jesus saw fit to embrace. In a sense, he “set up” (instituted) the disciples and their tasks. He set up (instituted) the Lord’s Supper. He set up (instituted) Peter as the “rock” upon which the church would be built.
And what about the church in the book of Acts? Many of the issues of the early church were issues of “setup”—institutional issues revolving around things like the relationship between Jews and Gentiles; the relationship between circumcision and uncircumcision; the relationship between staying put and being on the move. In order for the church to have been able to address these issues in Acts, it had to take itself seriously as an institutional reality. Which brings me to this point:
Realistically, I see no way to avoid the realities of administration, polity, and structure in the ministry of the church. They are inevitable portions of good stewardship of time and resources.
Let’s say that, in a fit of institutional angst, I am inspired to leave it all behind. “Hey United Methodist Church! I’m tired of your heavyhanded institutionalism! I’m going to blaze my own trail. I’m going to start a church in my living room, and I’m going to keep it small and focused and biblical and real. That is what God is calling me to do.”
How long do you think it would be before my living room church became an institution? How long would it be before the ten or fifteen people in my living room felt the need to become more efficiently organized in order to accomplish the ministry that God was calling them to accomplish?
My point is this: institutional church is an inevitable reality. It always has been. In fact, good ministry DEMANDS good institution (good setup). Therefore, in many ways, the anti-institutional trend is a protest against a reality that MUST exist, in one form or another. The real issue, then, is not whether we will have an institutional church. Of course we will. The real issue is whether or not the institution will be strategic and nimble enough to assist the church in accomplishing the ministry to which it is called. That is a different question altogether.
As I suggested earlier, some will no doubt dismiss this post as little more than the feeble rambling of a church bureaucrat defending the institution that he represents (towing the party line, if you will). I understand that. In that regard, I have no choice but to bear the symbols of the office that I am honored to occupy. But I’d like to think that I’m onto something here—something more than an undue fondness for the institution that pays my salary. I’d like to think that the United Methodist institution can still become a conduit through which the Holy Spirit makes its way into the nooks and crannies of the world to which the church has been called to minister.
Where the institution is outdated, out of touch, or out of whack, my prayer is that we will have the courage to recognize and name that—not because of a destructive eagerness to demonize, but because of a desire for the church to be at its best and its most faithful. Where the institution has caused harm to precious souls (shot its wounded, so to speak), my prayer is that the church will be sensitive enough to recognize and confess those moments of spiritual violence, so that the collective heart of the church will be deepened and softened.
In short, my prayer is that the church’s people will treat the church’s institutional nature, not as an enemy to be demonized, but as a portion of the church’s order that falls within the boundaries of God’s redemptive grace. If that happens, we might be inclined to see the institutional church as yet another segment of the “groaning and travailing creation” (Romans 8:22) that is yearning for the redemption into which God is leading it.
Perhaps this is naïve on my part. I hope not.
Eric,
My views on this subject have evolved quite a bit. Ten years ago, I was definitely in the “to-hell-with-all-institutions” camp. Over the course of the decade I became somewhat “bipolar” - sometimes quite critical, other times more appreciative of its value.
For the past few years, I find myself very much where you are: recognizing the inherent institutional character of all Christian ministry, while affirming the need for legitimate prophetic protest and self-critique, so that no particular institutional form becomes an idolatrous stumbling block for the Gospel.
I also appreciate your honesty in confronting the motives that often accompany institutional critiques. I admit that in “deep past,” my own frustration with church structures stemmed from a selfish unwillingness to deal with any accountability or to recognize the valid insights from otherw with more “structure-oriented” personalities.
For any of your readers, I suggest two books that definitely helped me to fall in love with the institutional church and to see the real dangers in the “anti-institutional” mentality of some in the Emergent and House Church camps:
Colin Marshall and Tony Payne, “The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-Shift That Changes Everything.”
Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, “Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion.”
The thought of simply tossing the institution aside pains me, even if it is in (constant) need of reformation. The problems exist, and they are real, and they are important. There already are a lot of renewal groups at work, some with more success than others. Do we need a “tea party” movement in the Church?
The church will always have shortcomings, regardless of whether it is a big denomination with hundreds of buildings, or a single-room in somebody’s house.
I appreciate and agree with your admissions of the dangers of institutional self-propogation and insensitivity…and on the other hand I have seen frequently the tendency to dismiss and disrespect the spiritual gift of administration, which is sorely needed in some groups, and overfed in others. Examining ourselves and our processes and sacred cows is always a good check-up
Eric, I appreciate your post- especially as you write from the position of D.S. in the Church. I certainly struggle with many of the institutional aspects of the Methodist Church. I wonder if renewal movements can get enough traction in local conferences and ultimately at General Conference to make a real difference.
The churches I attended prior to high school lacked any sort of institutional hierarchy. They were either not affiliated with any denomination, or they were mega-churches affiliated with the SBC which (at least historically) tended to have a fairly light hand on the reins.
In retrospect, I think the time I spent in those churches was horribly damaging. And I think the lack of hierarchy contributed to the more damaging elements of those communities.
Yes, mainline churches with tons of institutional sclerosis can have a hard time adapting to change. That can look like a bad thing, but easy change can be much worse.
When market forces hit faith communities, there is immense pressure for the churches to embrace things that the customers want. Sometimes that means innocuous things, like livelier music. But often it means selling your product by pandering to people’s worst instincts.
The churches I attended as a kid got the crowds whooped up by peddling hyper-realized eschatology and naked populism. “The end of the world is nigh” and “city-folks are dangerous snobs who want to take our guns and Bibles” are themes that can get people into church. They also stoke fear and anger. When a church tries to terrorize eleven and twelve-year-olds into answering alter call at youth group with lurid descriptions of an imminent “tribulation” (as many churches I attended did), there is something fundamentally wrong with that church — even if they do manage to pack in the crowds on Sunday.
To make my point bluntly, and a bit rudely, non-institutionalized churches have very few incentives to ratchet back the crazy. In fact, all of their incentives work the other way. The hotter the rhetoric, the more butts in the pews.
A church like the UMC is in it for the long haul. The UMC, as a large association, would have a hard time making wild claims about the end of the world happening soon — because the UMC is likely to still be here when those claims do not come to pass. The UMC has a hard time vilifying any particular demographics (city-folk, college-educated pinheads, the gub’ment, liberals), because most demographics are represented within the church.
At the end of the day, we have a free market in religion in America. That may mean that old school denominations decline, while more people-pleasin’ congregations thrive. But that doesn’t mean that the institutions that thrive in the market are doing what they should.