I don’t subscribe to using IC to stand for Institutional Church in a negative or pejorative way. Institutions can’t be helped. Biblically, institutions are of the created order. They just are, just as we are. My own immediate family is full of institutions. Marriage is an institution. Family is an institution. Public education is an institution. The government we find ourselves under is an institution. Even our supper is an institution. We have instituted it almost every day at around 5pm that all five of us sit around the table and eat together, as much as we are able.
The problems would start, however, if it felt like an institution. If it becomes forced, contrived, demanded, required, staged, and it no longer is permeated with grace, love and care, then the natural truth of it dies and only the institutional and organized shell remains.
The great American essayist Wendell Berry writes in his excellent essay, “God and Country” (in What Are People For?):
It is clearly possible that, in the condition of the world as the world now is, organization can force upon an institution a character that is alien or even antithetical to it. The organized church comes immediately under a compulsion to think of itself, and identify itself to the world, not as an institution synonymous with its truth and its membership, but as a hodgepodge of funds, properties, projects, and offices, all urgently requiring economic support.
This is why I think such voices such as Berry’s, who is often called a prophetic voice in America today, are needed in this world. He helps us differentiate between the truth of, say, the church, and the false of, say, the accretions that attach itself to it. I recognize that even though I am no longer on staff at an institutional or organized church, I am still a part of the church and desire to be a responsible member of it.
It is my community. So it is my personal challenge to be a part of the institution in a responsible way.
Please join my newsletter by clicking HERE. Thank you!
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
This is so true! I grew up in a family that was very anti-institutional church. So we had church at home with other families. Yet, even that took on a specific character. We sang songs, we read scripture. Someone shared a word. We took communion. We even baptized new members. So, what differentiated it from the IC as my family viewed it? The very things that Berry talks about- funds, properties, projects, and offices.
I go to a church that has offices and a building, but it doesn’t feel like an institution – it feels like a place. It feels like it’s MY place.
I’ve found it better (easier?) to divorce two main aspects or definitions of ‘institution’ from each other in my thought in a way not dissimilar to the way may separate Church from ecclesia.
For me there is ‘institution’ (a custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society; i.e. marriage, family, perhaps even the idea of government) and ‘Institution’ (an established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture; i.e. mission organisations, government departments, church hierarchies).
It is the second type which I personally have difficulty with, for:
A)its propensity to self preservation beyond its useful life,
B)its rigidity; if you don’t fit its mould it tends to either ignore you or try to change you to make it fit, and,
C)its use of resources such as time finances and effort.
The first type of institution tends to change as people join in or stop, has no life beyond the attention of those who participate and takes no resources beyond the resources which are naturally used in the act of participating in it.
Of course, this description is ‘in a nutshell’ and most things which are in nutshells deserve to be there (ie, they are nutty), but viewing institution/s in this way has served me well so far.
It allows me to participate in the best of institutions while simultaneously guarding against the less desirable aspects.
Is this perhaps similar to the institution/accretion divide used in the post?
Johnfom: Yes, our ideas are somewhat similar. Except I would argue that these really aren’t two different institutions, but one that is succeeding in fulfilling its call in service to people, and the other one is failing in that it is achieving dominion over them. Any institution can go either way, so none are immune. That’s why I think it is misdirected to say something like, “I will never be a part of the church because it is a corrupt institution!” The church will be wherever we intentionally gather. The challenge is to prophetically and steadfastly keep it in our service. You see what I mean?
This might be my favourite “institution” post of yours. There is a very helpful distintion made between good (natural, beneficial) and bad (dominating, forced) institutions.
I studied the effects of institutions in political contexts. They do take on a life of their own and how we design institutions has a lasting impact, which can be for better of worse. Keeping institutions in check is important and requires a certain amount of vigilance.
I like Sarah’s description and John’s differentiation as well. To me, a home church is usually a positive institution. The insitution depends completely on the people involved, and changes with their callings, abilities, and interests. The time, effort, and money invested goes directly to activities people want to participate in, to building them up, or as a gift to others and other communities. No waste on maintaining the institution for its own sake. Things tend to be spontaneous, flexible, and cost-effective.
Or you could have a world-wide network defined by connections between communities, which are defined by buildings, governed by a complex constitution, rules, and hierarchical structure, where people spend more time, money, and effort maintaining the institution and its holdings, and understanding its rules.
Not that denomination that chose (actually, have inherited) the latter are bad, but couldn’t they do without the giant institutional structure? Wouldn’t shedding it or simplifying it be of benefit?