INTRODUCTION

I hope this introduction introduces the following essays in such a way to give appropriate context since they cover such a prolific diversity of topics. There are a couple of things that I think you, the reader, should be aware of before you start reading this very personal collection of essays that I don’t think I will make clear enough in the various posts. Primarily, my criticisms on the modern church are not a criticism on individual churches or what I believe is the very genuine desire of most churches to be faithful in their ministry. My criticism is on what I will refer to as institutionalization. At times I my say “the church” or “the institutionalized church”, but I am always referring to the influence of this abstract idea of institutionalization. I think that I define what I mean by that term pretty well in various places throughout the essays, but even though I state this repeatedly I still worry that the reader will misunderstand my criticisms and believe that I am attacking the local church. That simply is not the case. In fact, since the time that I began these essays to the time that I am writing these words, I have considered becoming involved in the local church again. But as you read, contextualize my criticisms under the umbrella of this philosophical and abstract notion of institutionalization. Institutionalization in short is that influence on a church to sustain itself at the cost of the core values of the organization. Richard Neibuhr has a definition for the institutionalized church that is very helpful in understanding what I mean. He argues that a sect is often birthed out of the church with the intention and function of organic ministry and communal relationship, but once that original group incorporates new generations the role of the sect becomes one of teaching new generations the values of the original group. It then becomes an organization with doctrine and creed dictating the development of ministry and relationships. It is at this point that the sect becomes an institution.

Similarly, I believe there is a typical pattern to this institutionalization. Let’s say a new community has formed. The church is small and, for the most part, individuals who have left a church that believing it was time to “do church differently”. To the best of their knowledge, the community is committed to genuine ministry, but as time passes the church begins to develop an identity of its own. Structures form and various ministries develop. It is a good time for the church as they begin to see what is happening as the power of Christ. The charter members and new people who came to the church because it was growing, however, are beginning to become frustrated with lose of power and control. Factions are established. Programs and ministries are the priority. Soon there are two core values of the church: the original core values of community and the new values of territory and control. The church, simultaneously, is increasing its membership and ministries and sees the need to increase its facilities. Once the church has increased its facilities it needs to increase its resources to maintain the facilities and ministries. With such a vested interest in the church by now there is also a growing need to ensure the continued life of the organization. This requires more facilities, ministries, and resources putting increased demand on the organization to bring in new members. Ultimately what you have is an organization that must continue to grow to survive, members who are required to give more of themselves financially and with time, and factions in the church who lay claim to various levels of control. This is institutionalization of the church. It is when two core values exist simultaneously within an organization: the values of Christian ministry and the values of organizational survival. These two can co-exist for some time, but eventually the organization will have to choose between the primarily goal of survival and integrity to the gospel. The influence of institutionalization has already occurred. It is when the church is faced with this choice and chooses survival that the church has become institutionalized. The church can and likely will continue to do great ministry, but the organization is no longer what it once was.

I will explain this institutionalization throughout the next several posts, but it is imperative that it is understood that I consider this a force. The force has spiritual, psychological, and sociological elements. Each one of these influences varies depending on the context, but it is these three elements and the multitude of elements that make up each one of them that creates an institutionalized church. It is, therefore, bigger than the parts. The people will likely range in spiritual maturity and interpersonal skills as much as any other organization. And the quality of real ministry will likely continue, but that deviation from the core values is no less real. Richard Neibuhr also says, “Christendom has often achieved apparent success by ignoring the precepts of its founder. The church, as an organization interested in self-preservation and in the gain of power, has sometimes found the counsel of the Cross quite as inexpedient as have national and economic groups.” He said this in 1929 and the truth of his words are no less true today. The institutional church can take on many forms. It can be traditional or contemporary, high or postmodern, urban or rural. It can even be an “emerging’ church. When looked at on paper, the emerging church is actually as non-institutional as possible. For example, Emergent Village embraces many values that I value. The emergent church can value multiplicity, missional relationships, diversity, and apostolic ministry. However, emergent can also be the new thing. As groups run from the religion of mainstream churches they will often find something that looks more like what they value. The problem with this is that this type of emergent community is founded on rebellion. True emergent ministry and communities have embraced something new and allowed that to take them out of the church in some instances and called to reinvent the church in other instances. This said, there might be times that it appears that I am critical of emergent ministry. Not at all. Even though I would not call myself an emergent Christian, I do highly value their contribution. I am, however, critical of those that use the label for marketing or sub-cultural reasons.

Additionally

Something else that I realize is that I don't come close to identifying those things that are so influential in my spiritual development over the past few years. I hardly spoke of my wife at all. I think this is because I have largely written this book as a description of my paradigm shift. My wife, however, has been a constant source of stability. If it wasn’t for her patiently standing by and letting me struggle then I don’t think I would have come out healthy on the other side. I also don’t spend much time referencing my community, my family, or my friends. Finally, it isn’t until now that I realize how much I struggle with what to do with these essays. It was written as an exercise in focused journaling. Throughout the process I hoped I could get it published, but that was never the purpose. I wrote it to work through my struggles. Now that it is finished I have to ask myself what I am going to do with it. I have chosen to use a blog instead of seeking publication because (1) it probably wouldn't quite make it and (2) for the value of personal integrity. Despite the format, by sharing it with other, I ask that you first and foremost forgive me for what I can only see as hypocrisy. Other than that I am not sure what else to say. Enjoy.