Jen posted this question to our group of friends yesterday and invited us to respond:
WHY IT IS COOL TO LOVE THE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH AND TO STAY COMMITTED TO IT EVEN WHEN THINGS SEEM DIFFICULT.
Forgive me that this is a much longer post than usual. My attention span isn't usually long enough for me to sit still to write such a long piece, but I was stuck on a plane for half of this. This is a culmination of thoughts from several years of a love-hate relationship with the institution of the Church. It might as well be time for me to share the nerdy-side of why I still choose to be committed.
Preface:
Most folks who know my story know that a big part of who I am today is a result of several years of wrestling with the institution that we as “Christians” call “Church”. As much as I’ve felt let down by the institution, there are reasons for why I’m still sticking around. Admittedly, a small part of that reason is a foolish loyalty to this highly dysfunctional family that I cannot seem to work past.
It began some time in 2005. My picture-perfect understanding of the Church as an institution had just begun crumbling, but there was always something that said, “Hold on, this is family. Don’t quit.” Over the years, the more I got involved in the Church, the more I felt let down by its structures. At times, “This is family. Don’t quit,” no longer stood as strong enough reasons for me to not leave. I needed something more.
By 2010, my disgruntlement with the Church as an institution had hit its peak. That was when I got involved with a ministry project in Berlin. Maybe it was being in Germany where some of the theologians I had the most respect for came from. Maybe it was having the time to step away from the institution for a bit. Whatever it was, the 3 months in Berlin caused a seismic shift in the way I understood "The Institution". This is the story.
Definitions:
First, a few definitions:
Institution – a system that provides lifestyle structure, law, boundaries and/or guidance that are socially accpted by a specific group of people.
Reformation – a time period dedicated to questioning the identity, vision, mission, values, and structures of a specific group of people, specifically addressing its relevance to the current culture and context.
Why Institutions Part #1:
Even as children, structures, rule books, boundaries or guidance help groups of people feel safe. In a social science experiment, children were put in a compound where there were no fences surrounding their play area. The group of children played close together. When fences were put in later to surround the same play area, the group of children spread themselves out to the limits of the fences. There was safety in having structures in place.
Whether we are looking at churches, schools, corporate organisations, politics or international relations, some form of institution is necessary to help groups of people navigate what it means to work or live together. We might say that institutions are necessary evils, but I think that is only because even the most free-spirited human being need some form of institution—even if it’s as simple as, “I will not hurt any living organism.”
So if those assumptions were true, (and for the purpose of this piece, let’s assume they are) how do we explain the increasing disgruntlement toward institutions, and specifically toward the institutionalized Church? To begin, I’m not convinced this disgruntlement is anything new. It might be helpful to examine what institutions looked like through history.
While I’m fairly certain the ideas presented in this piece are relevant to most institutions whether religious or not, because my academic background focused mainly on the sociological and religious fields, it is through these lenses that I present these ideas.
The Early Church:
For most church historians, the beginning of the institutionalized church is often defined by “The Early Church,” or “The Acts 2 Church”. Jesus had just been on the cross on Golgotha and been raised. The spiritual morale was on an all-time high even while persecution continued. Believers gathered together to share their belongings, break bread and fellowship. All was nice and rosy, right?
But “The Early Church” institution didn’t last for long. Barely a few chapters later in Acts, that institution was falling apart. Yet even today, we paint idealistic pictures of what it must have been like to live in the times of “The Early Church”. We look to that model to figure out how to create Church institutions today, perhaps because we choose to only remember the moments of the spiritual high reflected in the early Acts chapters. It is much easier to idealize what community life can be like if we default to some historical structure.
Historical Perspective:
Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against the study of history, or Scripture for that matter. In fact, I think there is much we can learn from the overall historical narrative of Scripture—and not just because I'm a history buff.
For the purpose of this piece, let’s begin with Moses—not because there’s nothing that can be said or learnt between the time of Adam and Eve up to the story of Joseph, but because it is during the time of Moses that the idea of institution really began to become clearer. Prior to Moses, the collective identity of the people of Israel had been exactly that: they were the people of Israel. It was as if because they wore the last name, “Descendants of Adam and Eve,” they knew exactly how the household ran.
Fast forward to the time between Joseph and Moses. By this time there were so many of them, and the “Descendants of Adam and Eve” last name no longer held water as they now lived under Egyptian authority. The Egyptian institution of making them all become slaves was put in place to help create some sense of order by an authority that felt threatened by their presence.
Fast forward a few more years to the period of exodus. We find a group of people whose institution was once defined by a common last name, then by an authoritarian figure now wandering in the wilderness without a sense of direction or common identity anymore. Enter the Ten Commandments and the other Mosaic laws as an institution to help navigate forty years of wandering.
Fast forward a few generations. This same group of people now live in the Promised Land and have been guided by judges. But it was no longer enough for them. They got disgruntled (sound familiar?) and asked for a king. And so King Saul became a part of their institution. And then King David. And Solomon...
Fast forward to the New Testament. We find Jesus himself saying that he came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfil it." (Matthew 5:17) And soon we begin to find more practices that help define "institution". Like Passover or Communion, baptism and footwashing.
Institutions. These things that help us function together as a people group. They're necessary even if we don't always agree with everything about them.
The Problem With Institutions:
The thing is, these all happened even before "The Acts 2 Church" developed as an institution. And yet when we default to the "Acts 2 Church" whenever we look for guidance on how to create new institutions today. Maybe it's because the Acts 2 model is the beginning of life after Jesus' death and resurrection. We understand that things had to be different after the first Easter, so we take on the first "radical" institution that came into existence as the main/right model for doing Church as an institution.
So what went wrong? Why are more and more people having issues with the institutional Church as we understand it today?
Maybe it's the simple reality that we don’t live in Acts 2 days. The first apostles probably had to tell themselves the same thing, that they didn't live in Exodus days either. Too often we get caught up in trying to keep things the same according to "the original version" of our institutions that we lose track of the spirit behind these institutions in the first place. If Jesus had been as caught up with the "original version" of the law of Moses as we sometimes can be today, fulfilling the law would not have led him to Golgotha.
Yet as frustrating as they might be, we as humankind default to institutions for various reasons. It might be that institutions provide safety, or because we love organizing things, events or people, or simply because we crave structure. Even for those of us who want to break away, it usually isn’t because we don’t want structure, as much as we have become disillusioned by structures that are not working. The reality is that as frustrated as we can get with institutions, breaking away from structure isn't going to solve anything. Why? Here are my reasons:
1) Humankind defaults to structure. We may try to break away from one structure, but we still end up swinging toward another structure. Migrants leave political structures of one nation, but they end up in another institution. Corporate workers who leave their jobs to set up their own businesses find that they have to create their own institutions as well. Radicals revolutionise only to eventually set up another governmental institution. Folks who want to, or have left institutionalized Church find themselves in other institutional structures as well--even home churches need structure: where are we meeting, what time and what are we doing when we meet?
2) We are made for community. The major world religions can differ greatly in theology, but there is a common thread through them all: the betterment of the community we live amongst. We may have differing opinions of Buddha, Allah, Jesus or Brahman, but we all know that we don't push each other on the playground, and we share our pencils to those in need. As followers of Christ, particularly, we do not, and cannot exist alone. And where there are folks gathered, a way of doing life together is formed.
The Reformation Response:
So if institutions are necessary, how do we make them work? How do we move forward together, and where do we go from here? Allow me to share with you a little bit about the heritage I inherited as a daughter of a reformation movement.
The Church of God Reformation Movement, through which I inherited my Christian heritage, has had a history of priding itself as a progressive movement. In a time where the universal Church struggled with denominational differences, we prided ourselves for preaching the message of Holiness and Unity, in an effort to restore Christian unity.
The problem is that too often, as sons and daughters of a reformation movement, we assume that the work is done. We assume that DS Warner and his kindreds did all that there is and can be to do for the cause of the gospel message in their reformation work. As a result, we simply settle into the institutions of those who have gone before us. But we don't live in the days of DS Warner anymore, nor do we live in the time of the Acts 2 Church. And we forget that even before the Church of God Reformation Movement came into being, the fathers and mothers of our Christian heritage had already been a part of this reformation work.
Jesus himself set out to reform the institution of the synagogue.
Martin Luther saw the great disparity between the institution of the Catholic church and the community they were supposed to be living with, and helped plant seeds for the Protestant reformation.
And after Warner, Nora Hunter reformed the missionary sending institution of the Church of God.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, through his writings, reformed the institution of the Church that had been corrupted by war.
What makes us think it ever becomes time to stop living and breathing our reformation heritage? I don't mean that we need to hold on to all "the original versions" of Luther, or to all of DS Warner's original teachings. I mean we continually seek to live out our reformation heritage.
We speak for injustice as Martin Luther did.
We break down barriers that hinder Kingdom work as Nora Hunter did.
We refuse to sit with status quo and easy answers as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did.
We uphold the essentials of all that is sacred as Jesus did.
Why Institutions Part #2:
As a part of the Church of God Reformation Movement, we become inheritants of a reformation heritage, but no just because of DS Warner. We don't worship DS Warner because of what he stood up for, but uphold his spirit of continually living out that reformation heritage. We call ourselves a "reformation movement" because that is exactly who we are supposed to be--reformers that keep moving forward with the times to create new institutions that continually remain relevant to the culture and context in the world we live in. I don't mean that we need to tear apart all that has been established by those who have gone before. I simply mean we need to continually exegete our culture and context to continue building on the foundation they laid.
So maybe you don't claim the same reformation heritage that I do. And maybe you don't have the same foolish loyalty to a highly dysfunctional family institution that I do. But I think we owe it to each other to keep speaking into the institutions that have become a part of our communal heritage as followers of Christ--not simply for the sake of keeping these institutions alive, but because these institutions are what feed our sense of community.
My friends, Joe and David have become very important people who have helped me be a better person in spite of my frustrations with the institution. They have each written separate pieces about how these institutions feed our sense of community, so rather than try to re-write what they have done, I invite you over to their posts.
Click here for Joe's thoughts
Click here for David's thoughts
