INSTITUTIONAL MAINTENANCE

(As a college minister in the local church, I had the benefit of sitting just behind the front lines of church growth ministry. I still participated and attempted to intersect my responsibilities with certain activities of the church, but for the most part I could watch what was driving church programming a little more objectively than most. The issue of institutional maintenance was the defining characteristic of the church for when I was in the process of disengaging from it. Since leaving the church I can see how much self-preservation drives “secular” activity as well, but the thought of the church using the name of God for personal reasons was very difficult for me. Remember as you read the following blog that it was written as a journal entry within the last few months of my time as a professional minister. If you don’t pick up on it, much of these words were written by a mix of conflicting ideas and outright anger.)

The most significant issue facing the church today is that the structuring, programming, ministry, and services all exist with the primary purpose of ensuring that the organization continues to exist. I don’t feel that leaders in a church are aware of this function of the church programming because I feel that for the most part, leaders feel a genuine sense of passion and calling for both the church and Christ. However, when one looks at how the church operates there is much evidence to support this conclusion. Many church lay and clergy leaders view success in ministry as the building up of not only the Kingdom of God, but their own organization. Every new visitor is quickly evaluated to see how the person can best serve not only the Kingdom, but the organization. If the person is skilled, then there is competition between departments for the new member. The organization will then use the results of these skills and talents to compare how they are doing in relation to other churches. The winner of the competition typically is the one with the greatest resources. Another argument that supports institutional maintenance is the emphasis on tithing and membership expectations. This exploitation of visitors and members is dangerous and needs to be discussed openly by church leadership. Again, I do not feel that this is a deliberate exploitation, but one with damaging results.

If there is any hope in the church reclaiming its integrity there are things that can be done. Church leadership is going to have to lead the way by setting the example, standing up against injustices and manipulations, transparency must increase, open dialogue must be promoted, power structures must be realigned, the clergy and finance system must be analyzed, and true priorities must be established. The most significant change is evaluating motives and reasons for programs. Many well intended churches strive to create an environment of enthusiasm in the hopes that the enthusiasm will generate interest in the church. From here, as the model works, once the person becomes interested in the church then the person will become involved in the church with either leadership or attendance. The next step would be that through the involvement in the church people would explore spiritual growth. This seems to have worked well for many. But it is not biblical. The church shouldn’t offer enthusiasm in the hopes that it would lead to intimacy. It should offer intimacy in the knowledge that intimacy will lead to enthusiasm. The growth of the church cannot happen as long as we hope that our program is good enough to build the church with a slight hope that this church growth will lead to discipleship. It will, however, grow when we realize that we need to offer something significant. This radical shift would certainly turn many away from the church. This is ultimately a good thing as it would promote the health of the Body of the size of its belly.