When I speak of institutional, I am speaking of the idea that this kind of church has enough organization to be a church that you can regularly and consistently go to at a given time and place each week with a fairly straightforward agenda. If your church has no membership, meets in a home, is closed to the public, etc. I am still defining it as institutional for the sake of this article. Now, that is not the same as a religious system. That's a different discussion for a different time.
This is the younger example of the 2, but I am covering it first because it seems to be the one that caught on more in the western world where the mind is so prized. This type of church can be seen forming in the letters written by Paul to churches in the New Testament. It is a multitude concept, people are collected into one location at the same time. Then they are fed a ration of spiritual food. This spiritual food varies from Sunday to Sunday, but everyone there gets the same basic dish from the worship, the teaching, and discussions in Sunday school, testimonies, etc. As this type of church grows, it tends to get more and more organized and streamlined to ward off chaos. Some of these get so big, that they start being run like a business with a board of directors and everything. If you are going to a church every Sunday, it is probably one of these churches. This is the type of church that can be “gone to”. The other type cannot be “gone to”.
Pros:
Consistency, if the worship and teaching are good, it can be experienced every Sunday, because usually, it is the same worship team and the same teaching team. For example, the early church took communion seriously. Well, if you incorporate communion into your institutional church. You can partake regularly, like even weekly with very little planning on an individual level if the responsibilities are spread out appropriately.
Quantity, it is hard to find a better place to meet a bunch of good people, and catch up with a bunch of friends at once than a church.
Knowledge, if a gifted teacher in the group has a deep word that is very beneficial for all Christians to know, that teaching lands on more ears in this setting.
Music and Worship, A multitude of people can often make more, and often nicer joyful noises to the Lord than a few. A gifted worship leader can lead more people into “God’s Presence” in this setting.
Cons:
The priesthood of all believers, If in a group of 100, the best teachers and worshipers emerge, what are the rest to do? Where are the individual heart cry and giftings explored or cultivated in a setting where most sit and listen? This is a huge challenge facing this type of the church today, some of the house church types have made big strides in solving this by shrinking the church into houses where it is easier to transition from conversation and teaching. Others have done well by opening their pulpits and worship teams to let all who have a heart for it cultivate God-given gifting. Yet this problem remains a constant danger to be on guard against.
Finances, If you commit yourself to the tithe the Lord introduced in the old testament, for example, it gets swallowed up by your church, and you don’t directly see it again, you can give above and beyond the tithe, to the needs, you actually cross in your life, but any money you give to the church is often used to prop up the system.
Relationships, It is very difficult to dig deep into people’s biggest struggles, passions, and fears in this church form. Almost always, this happens in the other church form, often by people who deny the existence of the other church form, and with that, it is time to look at…
Jesus’ Relational Example.
This type of church is hard to find, it is not something you go to, it is something that happens, whenever 2 or more gather in the name of Christ, which is to collectively learn of, worship, and talk with or about Christ. This type of church can be seen in scripture in the way that Christ relationally and spontaneously talked with, dined with, and taught, his 12 disciples, other friends, and the multitudes. Today, it can be likened to a wheel. You are the hub, and the outer rim of the wheel is formed by all your Christian friends who you share the name of Christ with frequently. The relational bonds between you and them are the spokes. Again, you cannot “find” this church, you can experience it by being a hub. To be a hub, you must “farm friendships.” For example, who is someone you enjoy visiting with? Invite them to your house for dinner, and lead the conversation towards the spiritual, that is like preparing the ground, and planting the seed. If the other person is of a spiritual bent, the Holy Spirit in him and in you will bless this effort and the church will show up in whatever way it is supposed to. So, this is not a church to go to, it is a church that comes forth in the harvest of planting the right seeds. God brings it forth in the harvest. You do not get to create or plant the church, you prepare the spiritual soil, in the same way, a farmer prepares for corn, with soil preparation and seed planting.
Pros:
True religious freedom, your routines, your exercises, and ways of worship are uniquely driven, expressed, and formed from the relationship you, and your family has with the Lord. There is no religious obligation placed on you by a church system/institution.
Deep lasting friendships, a lot of relational church is just that, you actually get to hear from others as time passes, you actually hear what they are struggling with, and what they are passionate about, you actually know how to pray for them, and how to physically help them.
Finances, Tithe, and whatever generosity you have beyond that, are all collected and saved by you, and not given over to a treasurer who may spend it for pew cushions or for a widow lady, and so your personal ability to help others directly is at least doubled in the relational church.
Cons:
Worship and Music can be harder to make in a relational setting if you don’t have a lot of people, if this is important to you, you may have to spend more effort shopping for Christian concerts and perhaps organizing independent worship nights.
Intentionality, this thing of being a hub and planting for a church to happen is not a suggestion with the relational church, it is a necessary natural act to release God’s supernatural. God can transcend our natural efforts, but most times it seems, that He does want us to naturally work and walk towards His miracles. If you do not find in you the ability or desire to be a hub, then stick with the institution. For example, the early church took communion seriously and had it every week. Well, if you want to do so as well, this will require some serious planning on your part, who to invite? When does it suit them? Making the bread and finding the wine, all on your own.
Quantity, it is pretty hard to get together with more than say 3 families at a time while still being true to the relational model. Oftentimes, things become structured and organized to ward off chaos if the gathering grows. Or things just devolve into a non-spiritual party, which is ok, but not a church, for you are not meeting in the name of Christ.
We can observe that the cons of one, are the pros of another. So, neither form of the church should be condemned and done away with. In fact, they complement each other beautifully. It is extremely troubling to see the “fans” of one snipe at and try to snuff out the other. If you find it within yourself, it is probably wise to experience both. Your institutional church that meets on Sunday mornings really should give you the space to be a relational hub during the week, they should not overload you with obligations. In this way, you can experience both. On the flip side, most of your “relational rim” people are sitting in a church pew or chair Sunday morning, so rather than sitting alone and pouting, maybe find yourself a chair or pew to sit in as well? God can speak very powerfully through the anointing of people on stage who are placed there in the will of God, and not for their own fame. If you cannot find it within yourself to live in both, seek the Lord as to which one is right for you, and do not condemn, steal, kill, or destroy the other. That is the enemy’s work.
I want to make a few comments about all this now. This is a reality that I felt and observed for years but a dear friend of mine pointed me to a book called The Other Half of Church by Jim Wilder & Michael Hendricks. It kind of clinched everything for me and played a part in helping me put words to these thoughts. Then we have the church book writings of Marc Carrier, Gene Edwards, Finny Kuruvilla, and Frank Viola. In my view, those should be read as ways to improve the institutional church by gleaning ideas from the early church, ie what worked for them? Finally, we also have the church book writings of Wayne Jacobsen, he does a great job of exposing and pointing out the beauty of the relational church. Yet, I would caution you to not write off the institutional church when you read his work. In ALL cases, spit out the bones.
So you might ask, is this pragmatic analysis of the 2 sides of the church a biblical concept? Well...no..not as far as if you were to ask me to provide a verse, no, I can't. However, it is observable for the early church experienced it all. They would meet in ways that allowed for all forms of church to flourish. There was teaching which is what the institutional church of today gives (sort of) and discipleship which is what the relational church of today gives (sort of). There was a place to go to, to get taught, and to be served communion every week, and yet, the event lingered, and the relationships happened. There was a close-knit wholeness that they had and we lack it. I want that back. Would to God, that we could have that back, but until then, what I wrote above is my encouragement for you and me to get closer to the church God intended for us. To go to church, take what is good and eschew the rest, (side 1) and then intentionally connect with people during the week (side 2).
Some notes about the early church:
1. They met on Sunday, twice, in the morning and the evening. Sunday was not a holiday in those days so many of them had to work. The apostles didn't teach them to keep Sunday as the Lord's day where no work is allowed etc.
2. They had communion every week. When Jesus said, this is my body, eat, this is my blood, drink. They believed Him. Not in a weird cannibalistic sort of way, but in a spiritual way, they believed they were partaking of Christ.
3. They believed just about every principle Jesus taught and actively did them for they didn't have theologians that "knew better" to explain the uncomfortable things away.
Source Material: Church Life A.D. 150 By David Bercot.
Edited and updated.
No comments:
Post a Comment