All that said, I'm still surprised by how you could understand the New Testament to be primarily about individual salvation and not the Kingdom/Church/Body.
I'm genuinely interested in how you could come to what appears to be such an Americanized/individualistic interpretation of Scripture.
It's one thing to not like what many Christian corporations look like. It's another to privatize Christianity.
institutional church?
Re: institutional church?
Who said anything about it being one person in isolation? We need other people. Christianity is not isolationism. But the polar opposite is a Western fiction. Bullet points; seminars; focus groups; membership building. All Western capitalistic advertising techniques. It's not the fellowship, it's the structure.
By implying that the "organized" version is somehow more Biblical--hence more spiritual or better--then that implies that John Smith and family is not a fellowship, or at least not much of one. Not one that is living up to it's potential--not thriving. Who is anyone to make that call?
If a few people meet in a home, and they end up meeting a few other people that likewise meet in a home, and they choose to get together on occasion for mutual fellowship, fine. If they then decide to "network" in whatever ways Christians "networked" prior to the digital age, and they decide to pool their resources for some common charitable effort, all fine and dandy. But that should be it. There is no reason to believe we need buildings. The buildings are there because people made it about "organization." The Catholic Church became the abomination it did because some folks thought it best to be attractive to those that had temples--namely pagans. There's no reason to rehash 19 centuries of "Church" history; I think you are informed.
If a move of God comes upon a body of believers and they unite for a season for a purpose, I'm fine with that. But when you drive down stakes and make measuring lines, you will without fail trespass into something that God doesn't want--at some point. It may not be as grievous as Romanism, or any of the other "isms" of the Protestants, but to the degree that you stake your claim, you will.
Again, I have no argument with people that want this. I can accept their professions. I just think the vast majority never even consider the possibility that all of this is influenced by our own desires, not necessarily the move of God.
Regards, Brenden.
By implying that the "organized" version is somehow more Biblical--hence more spiritual or better--then that implies that John Smith and family is not a fellowship, or at least not much of one. Not one that is living up to it's potential--not thriving. Who is anyone to make that call?
If a few people meet in a home, and they end up meeting a few other people that likewise meet in a home, and they choose to get together on occasion for mutual fellowship, fine. If they then decide to "network" in whatever ways Christians "networked" prior to the digital age, and they decide to pool their resources for some common charitable effort, all fine and dandy. But that should be it. There is no reason to believe we need buildings. The buildings are there because people made it about "organization." The Catholic Church became the abomination it did because some folks thought it best to be attractive to those that had temples--namely pagans. There's no reason to rehash 19 centuries of "Church" history; I think you are informed.
If a move of God comes upon a body of believers and they unite for a season for a purpose, I'm fine with that. But when you drive down stakes and make measuring lines, you will without fail trespass into something that God doesn't want--at some point. It may not be as grievous as Romanism, or any of the other "isms" of the Protestants, but to the degree that you stake your claim, you will.
Again, I have no argument with people that want this. I can accept their professions. I just think the vast majority never even consider the possibility that all of this is influenced by our own desires, not necessarily the move of God.
Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
Re: institutional church?
TheEditor wrote:Who said anything about it being one person in isolation? We need other people. Christianity is not isolationism.
I don't think anybody did. My issue with your quote was not that you suggested lone ranger Christianity, but that you seemed to PRIORITIZE the individual relationship over the corporate Kingdom/Church/Body (I used the word PRIMARY). I think this is an unbiblical, Americanized, individualistic opinion. But I want to stress that we're not having a massive disagreement here. We BOTH think that an individual relationship with Christ is important and we both think that incorporation into a fellowship of believers is important. You prioritize the former and I the latter.
By implying that the "organized" version is somehow more Biblical--hence more spiritual or better--then that implies that John Smith and family is not a fellowship, or at least not much of one. Not one that is living up to it's potential--not thriving. Who is anyone to make that call? If a few people meet in a home, and they end up meeting a few other people that likewise meet in a home, and they choose to get together on occasion for mutual fellowship, fine. If they then decide to "network" in whatever ways Christians "networked" prior to the digital age, and they decide to pool their resources for some common charitable effort, all fine and dandy. But that should be it.
The problem I have with your view is that you make the incorporation into the body of local believers sound so optional. A household of Christian people, in your wording, need not seek out a relationship with other local Christians. IF they CHOOSE to get together that's FINE and DANDY (so long as they don't go too far or do it too often?). This position is counter to the New Testament witness and, it seems to me, shows either that you've been too influenced by western individualism or too broken by past experience.
There is no reason to believe we need buildings. The buildings are there because people made it about "organization." The Catholic Church became the abomination it did because some folks thought it best to be attractive to those that had temples--namely pagans. There's no reason to rehash 19 centuries of "Church" history; I think you are informed.
See, I don't think that's what this thread is really about. Who is arguing the necessity of buildings? Do you think it was preferable or a mistake for the early Christians to knock down walls in their homes so that MORE believers could meet together at once? Because the evidence says that that is exactly what they did. We actually agree that buildings are often a hindrance to remaining focused on Christ, but you SEEM to be suggesting that it is better for a believer to fellowship with 5 family members and a couple friends than a diverse group of as many as will fit in the room. I actually think that is such flawed thinking that it endangers the very nature of the Gospel which is largely about diverse kinds of people learning to fellowship together!
If a move of God comes upon a body of believers and they unite for a season for a purpose, I'm fine with that. But when you drive down stakes and make measuring lines, you will without fail trespass into something that God doesn't want--at some point. It may not be as grievous as Romanism, or any of the other "isms" of the Protestants, but to the degree that you stake your claim, you will.
IF... FOR A SEASON... Again, you're language makes the whole idea of 'church' optional. You're wrong about this. What kind of stakes and measuring lines, exactly, do you have in mind? Because I can't imagine it could be a group of 'elders' or some form of 'church discipline' since those things are thoroughly part of the New Covenant.
There's no doubt a lot of 'institutionalization' of Christianity is influenced by our own desires. My point is, so is a lot of our individualization!Again, I have no argument with people that want this. I can accept their professions. I just think the vast majority never even consider the possibility that all of this is influenced by our own desires, not necessarily the move of God.
Regards, Brenden.
I re-iterate... the problem with organized religion is not that it is organized. It is that it is religion (if by that term we mean a bunch of cold rituals no longer connected to the 'life' of Christ). I realize you are not completely against organization, but I think your thoughts on this issue are actually more dangerous than that... because you write as if the Kingdom/Church/Body is of secondary importance and even, to some degree, optional for individual Christians.
Of course, you could eliminate my fears by simply saying that you think it would be better for your 'house church fellowship' to grow to include as many as would fit in the home and become as diverse a set of believers as possible. You could relieve my fears by saying it'd be a GOOD thing to be making such an impact that organization was needed to continue being effective. Note how in the book of Acts, as they grew, the church had to begin identifying ministry leaders over specific ministry areas.
Thanks for the healthy dialogue,
Matthew
Re: institutional church?
When I first began criticizing "institutional" church, I was not aware of it being a term in common use for the concept I had in mind. I actually was pleased later to discover others who had chosen the same terminology. I am not saying I had never heard such a term previously, but it had never been one that, for me, had embraced the essence of what I felt had become wrong with the church.
When I began searching for the right term, I considered the word "organized", but immediately rejected its use because every society must be organized at some level—even if it is a family at the nightly dinner table (anyone remember those?).
Likewise, "established church" fell short as a useful term, since anything that exists (including the true body of Christ) has been "established," in the sense of "created" or "brought into being."
I also thought of the word "corporate" (as Jaydam suggested). It works well, if people are thinking of the word as referring to "corporations" (as people in secular speech probably do), but it is also an excellent religious word that simply means "many components taken as a whole"—as "corporate worship" differs from "private worship", and (as Matt pointed out), as emphasizing the corporate body of Christ in contrast to privatized spirituality. Because I use the word "corporate" in a positive sense so often, it would not serve the purpose that the word "institutional" has come to serve.
Even the word "institutional" is tricky. It is the best word I know for the concept intended by its use, though, as Homer pointed out, its dictionary definition is entirely innocuous. However, the words used in any society take on nuances that come to be understood by everyone in that society so that it is not so much etymology as popular usage that provides a given term meaning in any conversation.
Seen one way, the true, spiritual body of Christ, can be referred to as an "institution", simply because it was "instituted" by a Founder. However, when the term is joined, in common usage, with the word "church" (another word that has always had more than one possible meaning), it forms a new term: institutional church, which is often used as a pejorative—and always suggests a concept differentiating it from some other concept of church.
When I began using this term, I was not aware of its wide, general usage, and had selected it to refer to something fairly specific. Some of the previous posts have mentioned the concepts that I also would have in mind. It is the difference between a machine and an organism, a robot Vs. a living body. A robot can perform many of the functions that a man can perform. Perhaps the time will come when a robot will perform the majority of the tasks that men now do, but a robot will never be a man, because it possesses no spirit, or consciousness. A robot can build other robots, if it is so programmed, but it cannot reproduce itself, as living things reproduce themselves.
Churches may be organized, without becoming machines. theEditor wrote: "All group efforts, in my opinion, should be ad hoc, that way they can be dispensed with just as easily as they were created, without leaving a huge vacuum or void in peoples lives." This is a radical statement, but I have tended to see things this way for about two decades now (someone told me that Watchman Nee had presented some similar idea, but I don't know where). By "group efforts" I would mean "religious projects." A particular outreach is a church "project." A missionary program is a "project" (in the sense I am using the word). Starting a home Bible study or fellowship is another example of a project. Few would deny that such projects may serve a purpose for a while, and later be abandoned, either because their purpose has been fulfilled or because they are found to have been a bad idea in the first place.
A project is not necessariiy expected to continue eternally, come hell or high water. It is a goal-oriented enterprise, and no one thinks it strange if a day should come rendering that particular project obsolete. In this respect, a project differs from what I am intending by the word "institution." The latter is not a temporary, ad hoc enterprise, but sees itself as set up for self-perpetuation until the end of time (ideally).
I think that what most people would call an "organized church" should be regarded as a "project" as much as any other religious program or enterprise. This is because no "local church" is really "the Church" locally (unless there is only one church in town). In any locality where there are more than one Christian assembly, none of them are "the Church" in that locality, but each of them is a (possibly temporary) organization created to meet the needs of some segment of the Christian family locally.
Every local church is a man-made institution. This does not mean that God has no part in guiding its founders, but every individual gathering (or series of gatherings) is decided upon and organized by some human individuals. This is not a bad thing. It is necessarily the case. This often means planning a weekly program, perhaps acquiring a building (certainly a regular meeting venue), recruiting some hired (or volunteer) staff, and (hopefully) some loyal, regular participants/financial supporters. Such an organization is what we commonly call a "local church."
My point is that such a "local church" is as much a "project" as is any of the previously-named religious activities. Few local churches, however, view themselves this way. Every project is conceived and driven by humans. That is because humans are the agents that Christ selected to promote His kingdom. This cannot be avoided, and should not be. However, it should be understood that everything man creates is temporal, not eternal. Man-directed projects may have their inception and guidance from the Holy Spirit, in which case, they serve the Spirit's purpose and promote the Kingdom of God. In the best case scenario, the founder of a project, and its facilitators, will be Spirit-filled and Spirit-guided people. So long as this remains the case, the project will be fruitful, whether it continues through a season or for multiple generations.
However, institutionalism (in the negatives sense that I intend by the word) takes place when the project is imbued with a vision of permanence. I don't mean that it is seen as a long-term project (which may be quite the intention of the Holy Spirit), but as an entity that is to be continued for its own sake on a permanent basis. You see, any genuine, Spirit-led project may function for some time in a community as a fellowship assembly, and may look very much like what we call "local church." However, unless such a group includes every Christian in the region, it must be assumed that the Holy Spirit may reshuffle the deck in any number of ways that can legitimately result in the obsolescence of a formerly fruitful assembly and the rise of new kingdom projects to meet new situations. The underground churches under the Communistic persecutions would provide one illustration of this dynamic. Former members of the Lutheran, the Baptist, the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Pentecostal churches now became one assembly in the forest, while their former church organizations vanished and their buildings became museums.
In secular terms, a special organization established to channel finances to, or to assist in the relocation of, tsunami victims would be an example of an ad hoc project. Walmart and Apple Corporation would be examples of institutions. They aren't organized to meet any transcendent goal, other than the employment of personnel and the perpetuation of the corporation itself. It is in this same respect that most "churches" are "institutional."
Of course, no institutional church would be so crass as to frame a mission statement identifying the employment of pastoral staff and the increasing of the profit of the organization as their primary goals. They would all say they are organized to promote the Kingdom of God through the conversion of sinners and the spiritual nurture of the believers. Most churches probably have their origins in such goals, but, after they have acquired real estate and salaried professionals, it is difficult for priorities not to shift from the actual spiritual goals originally intended to the necessity of maintaining the machine, the meeting of financial obligations (not of the poor of the flock, but of the institution), and the popularizing of crowd-attracting programs.
In a spiritual body, resources are used to lift the poor out of their crises, to promote holiness and spiritual maturity among those who participate. A healthy body will also reproduce, so there will be new converts added by the Lord, resulting in some measure of growth. However, a spiritual body does not seek growth, financial expansion nor organizational permanence as its goal. Each spiritual member does its own part, according to spiritual gifting, and God's projects get done—sometimes with careful, Spirit-directed planning, and sometimes with no human planning at all.
The undesirable features that I have earlier identified with "institutional church" (in my series "Some Assembly Required"), and which define the term in my usage, would include the following:
A) The presence of "offices" that outlive the individual "officers." I recognize that there are spiritual leaders whom God raises up to provide the service of guidance and teaching to the church family. The church's recognition of these persons (even officially, if necessary) cannot be objected to, and the apostles sometimes actually indicated their approval of certain older men ("elders") to provide such oversight (thus they were "overseers"). The presence of a leader, however, does not justify the creation of a permanent office, which outlives the leader, and which requires a successor to fill. As in the Book of Judges, God's people are led by ad hoc, charismatic leaders that God's Spirit raises up for the occasion. There is no biblical reason to believe that Paul's recognition of "elders" created a political office to be filled by a successor when it was vacated by its original occupant. Automatic replacement of officers is the surest sign of the wrong kind of institutionalization in the church, and is as wrong-headed as was Israel's shift from judges to the monarchy. Monarchy involves institutional leadership, which rises through succession, not through qualification. Thus, wise Solomon was succeeded by the idiot son Rehoboam, and good King Hezekiah left his position to his wicked son Manesseh. In the period of the Judges, the people suggested making Gideon their king, meaning "you and your son, and your grandson" will "rule over us" (Judges 8:22). Gideon rejected this, saying, "the Lord shall rule over you" (v.23). Gideon understood that, as soon as leadership ceased to be by charismatic gifting, and became a mere office to which new leaders automatically succeeded, this would be the opposite of the Lord ruling His people.
B) The resources of the group are heavily designated to the maintenance of the machine, rather than to the needs of the (poor) people. The body of Christ needs someplace to meet (homes were a great answer to that need in the early church), but no church needs ornate and expensive buildings to do the work of God. A large meeting hall may be called for, if the circumstances of the church should so require, but when there are actual needy people in the community, there should be little or no concern for greasing the gears of the religious machine.
C. In an institution, there is prestige and privilege associated with the leadership. The very existence of authoritative "offices" provides something for ambitious and carnal people to aspire for. When the church historically became institutionalized, it was not long before the wolves were the bishops.
By contrast, when leadership is spiritual, there is recognition of this by the spiritual sheep, who will not follow a charlatan. When leadership is institutionalized, it is political, and the sheep must follow whoever occupies the office. There is a uniform that is saluted—even if it is an empty suit, as seems to be well illustrated in the modern, secular, political sphere. But that is just the point! The secular political sphere is the very model that Jesus told His lieutenants they must not imitate, but which institutional leadership is set up to resemble.
I agree that there is no sin in attending an institutional church (I attend them frequently, and sometimes preach in them!). For many Christians, there may be no other kind of church available to attend. My point is that the church should cast off all of its "institutional" trappings and become again an organic fellowship of Spirit-filled and Spirit directed disciples of Jesus.
When I began searching for the right term, I considered the word "organized", but immediately rejected its use because every society must be organized at some level—even if it is a family at the nightly dinner table (anyone remember those?).
Likewise, "established church" fell short as a useful term, since anything that exists (including the true body of Christ) has been "established," in the sense of "created" or "brought into being."
I also thought of the word "corporate" (as Jaydam suggested). It works well, if people are thinking of the word as referring to "corporations" (as people in secular speech probably do), but it is also an excellent religious word that simply means "many components taken as a whole"—as "corporate worship" differs from "private worship", and (as Matt pointed out), as emphasizing the corporate body of Christ in contrast to privatized spirituality. Because I use the word "corporate" in a positive sense so often, it would not serve the purpose that the word "institutional" has come to serve.
Even the word "institutional" is tricky. It is the best word I know for the concept intended by its use, though, as Homer pointed out, its dictionary definition is entirely innocuous. However, the words used in any society take on nuances that come to be understood by everyone in that society so that it is not so much etymology as popular usage that provides a given term meaning in any conversation.
Seen one way, the true, spiritual body of Christ, can be referred to as an "institution", simply because it was "instituted" by a Founder. However, when the term is joined, in common usage, with the word "church" (another word that has always had more than one possible meaning), it forms a new term: institutional church, which is often used as a pejorative—and always suggests a concept differentiating it from some other concept of church.
When I began using this term, I was not aware of its wide, general usage, and had selected it to refer to something fairly specific. Some of the previous posts have mentioned the concepts that I also would have in mind. It is the difference between a machine and an organism, a robot Vs. a living body. A robot can perform many of the functions that a man can perform. Perhaps the time will come when a robot will perform the majority of the tasks that men now do, but a robot will never be a man, because it possesses no spirit, or consciousness. A robot can build other robots, if it is so programmed, but it cannot reproduce itself, as living things reproduce themselves.
Churches may be organized, without becoming machines. theEditor wrote: "All group efforts, in my opinion, should be ad hoc, that way they can be dispensed with just as easily as they were created, without leaving a huge vacuum or void in peoples lives." This is a radical statement, but I have tended to see things this way for about two decades now (someone told me that Watchman Nee had presented some similar idea, but I don't know where). By "group efforts" I would mean "religious projects." A particular outreach is a church "project." A missionary program is a "project" (in the sense I am using the word). Starting a home Bible study or fellowship is another example of a project. Few would deny that such projects may serve a purpose for a while, and later be abandoned, either because their purpose has been fulfilled or because they are found to have been a bad idea in the first place.
A project is not necessariiy expected to continue eternally, come hell or high water. It is a goal-oriented enterprise, and no one thinks it strange if a day should come rendering that particular project obsolete. In this respect, a project differs from what I am intending by the word "institution." The latter is not a temporary, ad hoc enterprise, but sees itself as set up for self-perpetuation until the end of time (ideally).
I think that what most people would call an "organized church" should be regarded as a "project" as much as any other religious program or enterprise. This is because no "local church" is really "the Church" locally (unless there is only one church in town). In any locality where there are more than one Christian assembly, none of them are "the Church" in that locality, but each of them is a (possibly temporary) organization created to meet the needs of some segment of the Christian family locally.
Every local church is a man-made institution. This does not mean that God has no part in guiding its founders, but every individual gathering (or series of gatherings) is decided upon and organized by some human individuals. This is not a bad thing. It is necessarily the case. This often means planning a weekly program, perhaps acquiring a building (certainly a regular meeting venue), recruiting some hired (or volunteer) staff, and (hopefully) some loyal, regular participants/financial supporters. Such an organization is what we commonly call a "local church."
My point is that such a "local church" is as much a "project" as is any of the previously-named religious activities. Few local churches, however, view themselves this way. Every project is conceived and driven by humans. That is because humans are the agents that Christ selected to promote His kingdom. This cannot be avoided, and should not be. However, it should be understood that everything man creates is temporal, not eternal. Man-directed projects may have their inception and guidance from the Holy Spirit, in which case, they serve the Spirit's purpose and promote the Kingdom of God. In the best case scenario, the founder of a project, and its facilitators, will be Spirit-filled and Spirit-guided people. So long as this remains the case, the project will be fruitful, whether it continues through a season or for multiple generations.
However, institutionalism (in the negatives sense that I intend by the word) takes place when the project is imbued with a vision of permanence. I don't mean that it is seen as a long-term project (which may be quite the intention of the Holy Spirit), but as an entity that is to be continued for its own sake on a permanent basis. You see, any genuine, Spirit-led project may function for some time in a community as a fellowship assembly, and may look very much like what we call "local church." However, unless such a group includes every Christian in the region, it must be assumed that the Holy Spirit may reshuffle the deck in any number of ways that can legitimately result in the obsolescence of a formerly fruitful assembly and the rise of new kingdom projects to meet new situations. The underground churches under the Communistic persecutions would provide one illustration of this dynamic. Former members of the Lutheran, the Baptist, the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Pentecostal churches now became one assembly in the forest, while their former church organizations vanished and their buildings became museums.
In secular terms, a special organization established to channel finances to, or to assist in the relocation of, tsunami victims would be an example of an ad hoc project. Walmart and Apple Corporation would be examples of institutions. They aren't organized to meet any transcendent goal, other than the employment of personnel and the perpetuation of the corporation itself. It is in this same respect that most "churches" are "institutional."
Of course, no institutional church would be so crass as to frame a mission statement identifying the employment of pastoral staff and the increasing of the profit of the organization as their primary goals. They would all say they are organized to promote the Kingdom of God through the conversion of sinners and the spiritual nurture of the believers. Most churches probably have their origins in such goals, but, after they have acquired real estate and salaried professionals, it is difficult for priorities not to shift from the actual spiritual goals originally intended to the necessity of maintaining the machine, the meeting of financial obligations (not of the poor of the flock, but of the institution), and the popularizing of crowd-attracting programs.
In a spiritual body, resources are used to lift the poor out of their crises, to promote holiness and spiritual maturity among those who participate. A healthy body will also reproduce, so there will be new converts added by the Lord, resulting in some measure of growth. However, a spiritual body does not seek growth, financial expansion nor organizational permanence as its goal. Each spiritual member does its own part, according to spiritual gifting, and God's projects get done—sometimes with careful, Spirit-directed planning, and sometimes with no human planning at all.
The undesirable features that I have earlier identified with "institutional church" (in my series "Some Assembly Required"), and which define the term in my usage, would include the following:
A) The presence of "offices" that outlive the individual "officers." I recognize that there are spiritual leaders whom God raises up to provide the service of guidance and teaching to the church family. The church's recognition of these persons (even officially, if necessary) cannot be objected to, and the apostles sometimes actually indicated their approval of certain older men ("elders") to provide such oversight (thus they were "overseers"). The presence of a leader, however, does not justify the creation of a permanent office, which outlives the leader, and which requires a successor to fill. As in the Book of Judges, God's people are led by ad hoc, charismatic leaders that God's Spirit raises up for the occasion. There is no biblical reason to believe that Paul's recognition of "elders" created a political office to be filled by a successor when it was vacated by its original occupant. Automatic replacement of officers is the surest sign of the wrong kind of institutionalization in the church, and is as wrong-headed as was Israel's shift from judges to the monarchy. Monarchy involves institutional leadership, which rises through succession, not through qualification. Thus, wise Solomon was succeeded by the idiot son Rehoboam, and good King Hezekiah left his position to his wicked son Manesseh. In the period of the Judges, the people suggested making Gideon their king, meaning "you and your son, and your grandson" will "rule over us" (Judges 8:22). Gideon rejected this, saying, "the Lord shall rule over you" (v.23). Gideon understood that, as soon as leadership ceased to be by charismatic gifting, and became a mere office to which new leaders automatically succeeded, this would be the opposite of the Lord ruling His people.
B) The resources of the group are heavily designated to the maintenance of the machine, rather than to the needs of the (poor) people. The body of Christ needs someplace to meet (homes were a great answer to that need in the early church), but no church needs ornate and expensive buildings to do the work of God. A large meeting hall may be called for, if the circumstances of the church should so require, but when there are actual needy people in the community, there should be little or no concern for greasing the gears of the religious machine.
C. In an institution, there is prestige and privilege associated with the leadership. The very existence of authoritative "offices" provides something for ambitious and carnal people to aspire for. When the church historically became institutionalized, it was not long before the wolves were the bishops.
By contrast, when leadership is spiritual, there is recognition of this by the spiritual sheep, who will not follow a charlatan. When leadership is institutionalized, it is political, and the sheep must follow whoever occupies the office. There is a uniform that is saluted—even if it is an empty suit, as seems to be well illustrated in the modern, secular, political sphere. But that is just the point! The secular political sphere is the very model that Jesus told His lieutenants they must not imitate, but which institutional leadership is set up to resemble.
I agree that there is no sin in attending an institutional church (I attend them frequently, and sometimes preach in them!). For many Christians, there may be no other kind of church available to attend. My point is that the church should cast off all of its "institutional" trappings and become again an organic fellowship of Spirit-filled and Spirit directed disciples of Jesus.
Re: institutional church?
If it helps anyone to understand my personal position to say so, I agree with pretty much everything Steve just said (with the possible exception of the idealization of the structure during the period of the judges).
I really like the idea of seeing ministries within the church (and even the local church itself) as projects. I think this is a healthy perspective. My issue with the editor was the primacy placed on individualism.
I really like the idea of seeing ministries within the church (and even the local church itself) as projects. I think this is a healthy perspective. My issue with the editor was the primacy placed on individualism.
The difference between a church and a club
Steve wrote:Every local church is a man-made institution.
With this I strongly disagree. Some groups are local expressions of the one true Church which Christ founded, and other groups which call themselves "churches" are merely clubs.
It is true that no local church is THE Church, but it may be a local expression of the only Church, and it may be the only one in town—or not.I think that what most people would call an "organized church" should be regarded as a "project" as much as any other religious program or enterprise. This is because no "local church" is really "the Church" locally (unless there is only one church in town). In any locality where there are more than one Christian assembly, none of them are "the Church" in that locality, but each of them is a (possibly temporary) organization created to meet the needs of some segment of the Christian family locally.
As I see it, when people object to the "institutional church," they are in fact objecting to groups that are actually not expressions of the Church at all, but merely clubs.
Is “Entity X” a Church or is it a Club?
The Composition of the Church
1 Early Church
There is only one Church—the one that Jesus founded. There are many local expressions of that one Church.
2 Entity X
There is only one Church. But it is divided into many denominations.
3 Club
We are members of one club. But it is divided into many chapters.
Leaders of the Local Church
1 Early Church
Each local church was led by overseers (elders) who were assisted by deacons. The overseers saw that the meetings were in order.
2 Entity X
Each local church is led by the pastor (also called “the minister”). Larger churches may have assistant pastors. There is also a secretary and a treasurer of each church.
3 Club
Each chapter is led by a president. Usually there is also a vice-president. There is also a secretary and a treasurer of each chapter.
Membership in the Church
1. Early Church
One could not join the Church. Rather God added to the Church those who were being saved (Acts 2:47). The local church recognized all members of the one Church. Members of the one-and-only Church (founded by Christ) who visited or attended the local church had full privileges.
2. Entity X
A person can join the local church if he agrees with their statement of faith. If he joins, he gets onto their membership roll. Only those on the membership roll can take communion, give a sermon, or vote.
3. Club
A person can join the club if he agrees with their statement of purpose. If he joins, he gets onto their membership roll. Only those on the membership roll can vote or participate in club activities.
Conducting of Meetings
1. Early Church
There was a body ministry in the meetings. This means that the meetings were open for any member of the Church (which Christ founded) to minister as the Lord led him or her. This ministry might have consisted of a suggestion of a hymn, the singing of a hymn, a teaching, a tongue, a prophecy, etc.
2. Entity X
The pastor leads all meetings. He may be assisted by the assistant pastor, if there is one. The pastor usually does all the preaching. If he is absent, the assistant pastor gives the sermon. If there is no assistant pastor, the pastor may choose one of the members of the church to speak in his absence.
3. Club
The president leads all the meetings. If he is absent, the vice-president conducts the meeting.
Decisions
1. Early Church
Decisions were made as a result of prayer and the resulting thoughts of the brothers and sisters present under the direction of the elders (overseers). The elders had the final word in decision making.
2. Entity X
Decisions are made in a democratic fashion. Issues are discussed and the majority vote decides.
3. Club
Decisions are made in a democratic fashion. Issues are discussed and the majority vote decides.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: The difference between a church and a club
I didn't necessarily strongly disagree with this statement because I was taking into account the fact that some men (and women) are filled with the Spirit of God. When Paul planted a church it was, simultaneously, a man-made institution (in the good sense of that term) AND a God instituted church.Paidion wrote:Steve wrote:Every local church is a man-made institution.
With this I strongly disagree. Some groups are local expressions of the one true Church which Christ founded, and other groups which call themselves "churches" are merely clubs.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: institutional church?
I am glad I can agree with 'everything' said above, and Matt too. Why then would so many Pastors be in VICIOUS disagreement with me, and many like me, who challenge the template of the typical Sunday service and role the Pastors play on Sunday? (Although these same pastors may have previously liked, loved, respected, and agree with me doctrinally). Upon simply suggesting or questioning whether the typical Sunday sermon may not be what everyone needs on Sunday, the reaction we get from Church officers and pastors is typically a horrendous, and utterly explosive rebuke! They act as if I am asking to 'slaughter children and preach Satan' when I have asked 'why is there not a large time or place for believers to congregate for study prayer and fellowship on Sunday? (without being trapped in pews and rows listening to a sermon again and again every Sunday?)
Matt, simple question: at least once in a while after worship, announcements, and maybe a 10 minute introduction on a Sunday: would you allow the congregation to study and fellowship as a large group, around tables for a change, and not give a sermon?
I believe the real role of pastors was to 'encourage' others around the study of Gods word, conversing and communing together (not one or two preaching at others). Possibly help facilitate and organize the larger meetings and Sundays with others to ensure people were met and made welcome, included, gotten to know, and involved in whatever they were needing, or the group was already doing. We do this all the time with groups such as Alpha and the other large bible study groups where we sometimes have had 100-300 people filling the whole room 'involved with one another' in table discussions, prayer, and building hundreds of friendships. They are free to move around the room, just as the many group leaders (pastors) are also free to talk and move around table to table wherever they felt led.
This simple format is the most beneficial rewarding thing I have ever experienced in church, and yet most pastors are absolutely HOSTILE to the idea, and why??
If someone wants to quote the Didache, I might quote church history. I could pull out a long list of real reasons to why so many Pastors have this death grip on the pulpit and microphone, and it is not only because some actually believe 'only' they can lead the Church, that 'they' have the voice of God on Sunday (I am not kidding, that is one argument, and Seminary’s actually teach them this). And the list of problems associated with the role of Priest, Pope and Pastor is as long as church history. Still all we asked for is an option, to being trapped in this room just because we want to worship or sing together. If some want to sit through a sermon every Sunday and call it church, go ahead, feel free, but don't let them tell the others that is required, or that listening to the pastor is all that mature believers are capable of, etc. etc... so as to prevent the rest of us from having any real Church on Sunday.
(Paidion I am really glad we can agree on something too! I have argued many a topic, we both know few ever in a debate change their minds, as you know, but what is amazing is that 'this tradition' is generally the one that people start to defend, then quickly realize they are arguing for the Papacy and Priests, and often change their mind and agree! I have seen many many people agree, unlike any other, and found many wanting to hear. Most sadly is the pulpits will not budge, there is no alternative, and they have to go back to their pews)
Matt, simple question: at least once in a while after worship, announcements, and maybe a 10 minute introduction on a Sunday: would you allow the congregation to study and fellowship as a large group, around tables for a change, and not give a sermon?
I believe the real role of pastors was to 'encourage' others around the study of Gods word, conversing and communing together (not one or two preaching at others). Possibly help facilitate and organize the larger meetings and Sundays with others to ensure people were met and made welcome, included, gotten to know, and involved in whatever they were needing, or the group was already doing. We do this all the time with groups such as Alpha and the other large bible study groups where we sometimes have had 100-300 people filling the whole room 'involved with one another' in table discussions, prayer, and building hundreds of friendships. They are free to move around the room, just as the many group leaders (pastors) are also free to talk and move around table to table wherever they felt led.
This simple format is the most beneficial rewarding thing I have ever experienced in church, and yet most pastors are absolutely HOSTILE to the idea, and why??
If someone wants to quote the Didache, I might quote church history. I could pull out a long list of real reasons to why so many Pastors have this death grip on the pulpit and microphone, and it is not only because some actually believe 'only' they can lead the Church, that 'they' have the voice of God on Sunday (I am not kidding, that is one argument, and Seminary’s actually teach them this). And the list of problems associated with the role of Priest, Pope and Pastor is as long as church history. Still all we asked for is an option, to being trapped in this room just because we want to worship or sing together. If some want to sit through a sermon every Sunday and call it church, go ahead, feel free, but don't let them tell the others that is required, or that listening to the pastor is all that mature believers are capable of, etc. etc... so as to prevent the rest of us from having any real Church on Sunday.
(Paidion I am really glad we can agree on something too! I have argued many a topic, we both know few ever in a debate change their minds, as you know, but what is amazing is that 'this tradition' is generally the one that people start to defend, then quickly realize they are arguing for the Papacy and Priests, and often change their mind and agree! I have seen many many people agree, unlike any other, and found many wanting to hear. Most sadly is the pulpits will not budge, there is no alternative, and they have to go back to their pews)
Last edited by jriccitelli on Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: institutional church?
JR, as you know, you and I disagree on almost every theological subject. But on this one matter, that of Christ's disciples relating to each other and discussing Scripture, or contributing a teaching or expressing their personal ministry in some way during the meeting, instead of listening only to the so-called "mouthpiece of God" every Sunday, we agree completely.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: institutional church?
I would have no problem doing that regularly.jriccitelli wrote:Matt, simple question: at least once in a while after worship, announcements and a 10 minute introduction on a Sunday: would you allow the congregation to study and fellowship as a large group, around tables for a change, and not give a sermon?
Here are some of the reasons why we don't:
1. I'm not choosing b/w sermon OR group discussion. I'm choosing to do both. We have more opportunities for group discussions than sermons. I preach/teach 5 times a week. Trust me, I'd be glad to have a break, haha.
2. To be completely honest... that is not what most people want on Sunday morning
3. I probably don't view Sunday morning like you. I think of Sunday morning, not as the church, but as the Christian version of the synagogue. It's just a place where religious minded people go (like a religious town hall). Sunday morning is the place where we recruit true Christians to the church. I'm with Bruxy Cavey here too. He says The Meeting House (their 'church') isn't a big church with a bunch of cell groups. It's a bunch of cell churches that meet together for weekend programming.
4. Some of my sermons, and all of my teaching, already have conversation built into them. People are free to ask questions during or after. It's up to the congregation/class how much they wanna interact. It's certainly encouraged.