“But it is not a simple matter of bitterness, anger, and pain. The institutions are demonstrably bad, and I would posit un-Christian. The current institutional structure is the bone, and we should spit it out accordingly.”

Those are some very strong statements. People generally don’t make strong statements like that unless there is some strong emotion behind them. I’m not at all trying to make a negative comment on your character. Rather point out that indeed issues of pain, anger, forgiveness are present. These types of things are never purely an intellectual exercise.

It’s time now that we both stop speaking in vague, nearly meaningless abstractions. Let’s hear some concrete examples. I’m not saying this to be adversarial, but rather I find that when we move from vague abstractions to specific concrete examples the issue deflates quite a bit. Which institutions are ‘so bad that they’re un-Christian’? Specifically what makes them so?

Nathan: “Those are some very strong statements. People generally don’t make strong statements like that unless there is some strong emotion behind them. I’m not at all trying to make a negative comment on your character. Rather point out that indeed issues of pain, anger, forgiveness are present. These types of things are never purely an intellectual exercise.”

Not intellectual only. These are spiritual issues after all. But that does not mean they are founded in pain and anger. Hope and compassion are also strong motivators for strong statements.

Ok, so concrete examples. I would not say that certain institutions are bad, I say that *the* institution is bad. I would start with the fact that we have denominations at all. Should be eliminated. The fact that we primarily organize ourselves based on our difference of belief (and often the specifics, not the founding principles) is quite unhealthy and the really artificial division does not seem Christian. We are one Church, one Body. When all we expose ourselves to is reinforcement of our already held beliefs we close ourselves off to spiritual growth and we have limited opportunities to benefit from the perspectives of others.

Next to go in my opinion would be church hierarchy. This includes the false dichotomy of clergy and laity. Yes, some have gifts, callings, talents, experience, expertise, and knowledge that should be honoured. Leadership positions are important. But we have made two classes of people, which isn’t at all Christian. And, in most denominations, there is too much hierarchy in the clergy and too much power in leaders and governing bodies over congregations and congregants. It should be flatter.

Next I’d tackle the non-participatory nature of church services. Not there is something wrong with Sunday service, but that form, which makes spectators of most of the church should be far from our primary means of worship and fellowship. The alternative could take a number of different forms, but they should emphasize inviting contributions from everyone and they should challenge everyone.

Finally (for this post at least), I’d have to say that the institutional church focuses far too much on itself. We are too inward looking. And we have designed the institution that way, to take care of all of our needs and congregants, which outreach being something extra instead of something central. The institution should be designed to be outlooking, to help other and interact with the community perhaps even more than each other (which is far from the case at the moment). The main groups doing the real work are parachurch organizations outside of the main church structure.

This all come from what Jesus commanded of us. Love God first and completely, which means not being obsessed with our own comfort or preferences but being willing to be pressed so that we conform more to Him. And next to love others, particularly the disenfranchised, over trying to please those in church leadership.

Well, that’s a start. Already a completely different institution. I’ve been hurt in church and by church, I admit, but my problems with the institutional structure have come from a different place.

“Not intellectual only. These are spiritual issues after all. But that does not mean they are founded in pain and anger. Hope and compassion are also strong motivators for strong statements.”

Indeed hope and compassion can motivate strong statements. But hope and compassion don’t birth criticism and judgment. They birth vision, nurture, faith, a prophetic calling forth towards the piece of Jesus that we see giving us that hope in the first place. To paraphrase Jesus, ‘the fruit points to the root.’

While each of your points may be a little idealistic in my view, I don’t have any outright disagreements with some of the basic ideas. Yet I don’t see anything there inherent in your points that would exclude people within those institutional structures from the Kingdom or having a rich relationship with Jesus.

In my view, I see railing against “the institution” about as fruitful as some of my hyper-charismatic friends railing against the ‘principality of poverty’ over Africa in their spiritual warfare prayers. Have at ‘er, but it’s not going to change much.

Every resource that I can think of that has brought significant positive change to the church in my lifetime has always been a prophetic calling forth towards following Jesus to a place where we are not yet. I’ve never seen a work of criticism bring change like that. I believe that’s quite simply because the former brings life while the latter crushes it.

Which again brings me to my original point. Instead of spending time railing against principalities / institutions, why not rather bring something to the table that people are willing to buy into because they see the life of Jesus all over it?

If the ‘institution’ is so bad and the life of Jesus is all over another community / movement, people will come. I can think of a number of movements that experienced that kind of transitional growth for that very reason. But again, the focus is on leading people towards life in Jesus rather than dismantling institutions.

“I don’t see the two as being in opposition, you see. To me, criticizing the church and building up the Church can go together.”

The part that is oppositional is the heart through which it’s done. As I explained a few times a number of posts ago, there’s a difference between offering the occasional corrective word in love and humility and operating in a critical spirit. In my view, one is healthy while the other is not.

Honestly, I’m not concerned about people leaving the institutional church. I’m only concerned when people leave Jesus and the fellowship of Christian community. The people belong to Jesus. He can place them wherever he wishes.

I believe you’re misunderstanding me on the last point. I’m not saying that criticism can never serve a positive function. It can be good and even necessary to discuss a problem. And I’ve seen it done effectively to build up more times than I can count. But the criticism is never the focus, the building up always is.

What I am trying to point out is that there is difference between constructive criticism delivered in love for correction and a critical spirit.

(I use the word correction, because if criticism isn’t levied to bring healthy correction, then it’s only other function is to defile.)

I’m not sure what more I can say than what I have already.

Again, the position of the heart is the important matter. Where’s the focus? Is it on calling forth, building up, moving forward, or is it on criticism? Certainly it’s not always that tidy and polarized. But one needs to seriously examine what they are doing and focusing on. What does the action I’m doing say about the root it’s coming from? (fruit reveals root, deeds reveal faith, etc.) If I’m focusing on criticism, what in my heart leads me to do so? Why I am focused on criticism rather than building up?

A critical spirit has it’s focus on criticism. The roots that lead one to be in a relatively constant state of criticism and judgement vary, most often unresolved issues of forgiveness. Ultimately, the critical spirit tears down rather than builds up. I can’t help when I hear comments about tearing down the institutional church and wonder where that’s coming from. Why not use our energies to focus on what we believe Jesus is calling us in to?

Again, I’m not trying to say anything against David or anyone here. Bless him, bless you all. But I am asking a hard question about the repeatedly stated focus of the blog. It may not be the direction he ultimately wants to go.

Nathan: “Honestly, I’m not concerned about people leaving the institutional church. I’m only concerned when people leave Jesus and the fellowship of Christian community. The people belong to Jesus. He can place them wherever he wishes.”

Perhaps another clarification is in order. I really believe that leaving the institution can be a positive thing, that it can be very freeing, and sometimes necessary. Although we need to acknowledge that not everyone feels called out, some are pushed or simply can’t find a place where they feel they can belong. We should acknowledge that this is a problem, and it often leaves people adrift without Christian community. I’ve had my time “plugged-in” and “free-range” and in each case there were problems. The problem with not being in the institution is that Christian community can be hard to find and it’s even hard to know what’s out there. Virtual spaces like this blog I think are a big help, but sometimes you need a chance to be with people face to face to discuss your faith. The question is, if someone doesn’t already have that community, how do they find it without the institution? I’m not sure we have any good answers for that.

But I think the real loss is to those of us who are still in the institution. When people leave because they have different ideas or don’t “fit in” we are the one who lose those different perspectives, and perhaps the creative ideas that would help better the institution. All all of the Church becomes more isolated into pockets where we can’t bring our gifts and talents to one another.

Institution isn’t important for its own sake, and no one should feel obligated to contribute to it. What’s important is what it can do for us, and that should open to all.

Been away from reading here for a little while. Really enjoyed reading the discussion in one hit though.

Nathan (although not meant to be exclusively to Nathan… you know what I mean)

From what I’ve read you are saying that we must be careful to always acknowledge we aren’t involved merely in thought experiments with no consequences, and also that we must be careful we don’t inadvertently steer ourselves into criticism for criticism’s sake. If we could vote on the posts here you’d have my vote for that statement

But there also seems to be a close identification between the people of the church and the institution for you that I can’t agree with. This may be a point where we may have to agree to disagree.

For myself, I do believe there are independent ‘things’ which are’institution/s’ which, if kept small and changed often, and devoid of power, are not necessarily a bad thing, but which, in the case of the church, has become far too large and been around in it’s present form/s for far too long, with more power than is proper, and in many cases oppressing the people within its employ (not just those on the payroll but the volunteers as well).

I see David’s cartoons as a sort of visual hyperbole, highlighting the problems, not necessarily, although sometimes, offering solutions , but nevertheless an important step in the process. People can’t attempt to change the systemic problems unless they are aware of them as problems. Humour, including sarcasm/lampoon/satire, tends to be an emotionally safe way to spotlight problems. That, I believe, is role NP tends to fill. I don’t see NP as the whole process, merely as a (critical) first part of the process. The comments sometimes serve as a ‘hear hear’ to the presentation and sometimes as an attempt to begin the next step.

The tearing down and the rebuilding don’t have to come from the same source, nor in the same season.

With that in mind, the ‘purpose statement’ is, I believe, pretty valid.

@Johnfom

“But there also seems to be a close identification between the people of the church and the institution for you that I can’t agree with. This may be a point where we may have to agree to disagree.”

Indeed we will have to agree to disagree.

I believe it’s a false dichotomy to separate institutions from people. As I said earlier, everything that is done by an institution is done through human agency. In my humble opinion, separating the people from the institution is primarily done to abdicate responsibility from the people within – which is you and me. If we took responsibility, we’d have to examine what’s in our hearts.

I’m aware of ‘collective psychology’ and it’s effects. Yet I’ll continue to propose that this is all a matter of the content of the human heart. Collective psychology is able to have control because it hooks something in our hearts that is already present. If that hook (or to use a biblical term – “foothold”) is no longer there than the ability to control is minimized or eliminated.

And here I can’t help but comment – we give so much credence to the power of institution and collective psychology, but what about the power of the Holy Spirit to shape the church when there are willing hearts? Is the institution more powerful than the Holy Spirit? I hope we don’t ever believe that.

I’ve seen comments on how ‘Jesus challenged the institutions of religion.’ But we need to look at how Jesus did that. Jesus challenged the religious leaders not by criticizing their institutions, but by revealing the contents of their hearts. I think we can learn something important here from Jesus – not just what he did, but also how he did it and why he did it. He didn’t try to change the temple. Rather, he tried to change hearts.

I don’t disagree that there are problems within institutions. But those problems are there because of the various points of rottenness in peoples hearts. I know it’s popular to promote ‘down with big church’ and praise small church. But it changes little other than organizational structure and ability. There’s still problems because no matter where you go, there you are. If there’s rottenness in the heart it will work itself out no matter if you are in the largest organization or even no organization at all. Hence my assertion – if we really want to change the church in a way that will be positive and lasting, we need to have our hearts transformed.

@Johnfom

“how to help the individuals WE know who realise that change is necessary, to affect that change.”

THIS my friend is the $1M question.

And this is where my comments and questions have been centered. As I explained, I believe that the NT shows us the way to do this (and ways not to do this). That’s why I sincerely question a method with a sole focus of criticizing.

“Another time which shows an institution as a thing detached from the people is when someone has to ‘fall on their sword’ or ‘bite the bullet’ for the sake of the institution. Or maybe when we begin to talk about needing more people or the church is going to collapse (presumably through lack of resources) or when we have to rationalise resources to stave off bankruptcy (something the Church of Scotland is looking at having to do in the next 3-5 years) or even when the choice comes between spending money on keeping keeping the church doors open and spending the same money on feeding a family or 50. What exactly is going to collapse? What/who is going bankrupt? What/who is consuming the resources?None of the people involved, but the institution itself.”

I respectfully disagree with your analysis and conclusion. Those things that you describe are not at all separate from people. They are explicitly because of people and what is in their hearts.

There’s motivations of fear, insecurity, attachment to structures for feelings of safety and belonging, etc, etc, that drive those types of decisions. The blame rests solely on the content of human hearts.

When you take people out of the equation, an institution is little more than words on paper, bricks, wood, and some chairs. The heart, soul and collective mind of an institution rests in people.

I find that a lot of these discussions revolve around the issue of authority (power) and the institutions and their leaders. There’s the old maxim that people place their faith in – “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I contend that statement is completely false. Jesus had absolute power. Was he corrupt? No. He was the first born of the new humanity showing us what a person with a pure heart could achieve. Power doesn’t corrupt. It only provides an opportunity for the rottenness of the heart to express itself to a greater audience.

Again, I can’t help but to look at Jesus – what he said, what he did, I know doesn’t sound very culture current and mimic the popular conversations. But it’s Jesus. And I just can’t get past that.

“My own solution has been to sidestep the church”

Here’s a point where, as a pastor, I’d kindly suggest this. If this is the fruit of a faith system regarding the church, what is it saying about that faith system? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but rather asking a hard question or two. Because really this boils down to the question, ‘is community in Christ necessary?’ I believe the NT and history tells us that connection to the head necessitates a place in the body. If that is true, than it would be good reason to question a faith system that would take us out of that place. Again, I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but ask a hard question worth asking. And I’m also not saying that life in the body is easy or without problems. But it can be an excellent experience if we (the corporate we) are willing to follow Jesus with pure hearts.

Nathan

“BTW, do you think we’ve bored everyone else out of the room yet?”

I think they’re all LONG gone. Ha!

“Aye, and what is often in their hearts is love for the institution in preference to love of the people they purport to it serves.”

Exactly. It’s a heart issue. The heart is fixed on things that it believes the institution will give it to serve it’s own selfish need rather than to think of others.

“Attachment to what? Structures? As in ‘institutions’? Doesn’t that mean there is something to attach to or form attachments with?”

The attachment is to feelings. Feelings of security, stability, meaning, affirmation and the like – and feelings of fear if those things should leave. In this case the institution is and only ever was a tool to serve these feelings and needs within the people. Clean up the hearts and the problems go bye-bye.

“If the fruit of a church system is ministers/pastors/leaders, let alone general members, who make statements like ‘I’m looking forward to leaving so I can be a christian again’ or ‘Leaving the church so I can get involved in ministry’ (quick mental estimation of times I’ve personally heard those or similar:100+), what is that saying about the church system/s?”

I think it says a few things. But the things that it says all point to the heart of the individuals involved.

Don’t get me wrong, despite my belief in the necessity of community in Christ, I’ve seen more than my fair share of ugliness in the church. In every case there was something out of order in either the hearts of either one or both parties (leadership / membership). It only takes a little leaven. It could be something as simple as unresolved issues of frustration and forgiveness. But even simple issues that are left can grow quite big.

I’m not saying that as an accusation or to be antagonistic, but as an objective observation. And I’m saying it because I believe that things like this can be healed.

I’d also add to the above that when there are situations that are unhealthy, sometimes our best or only option is to move on to where the situation is healthy. It can be done, and life can be found. There are healthy, functional communities out there.

However, if we do come to a new situation with unhealed issues, we’ll bring something unhealthy into a healthy situation. I’ve seen this a number of times where unresolved issues manifest in unhealthy expectations that actually precipitate those expectations. This type of dynamic is common to both group and interpersonal relationships as any counselor will attest. It’s a nasty cycle. The cycle needs to be broken. Which is why I continue to advocate for the healing of hearts on both sides if this is going to work.

I’d pose this question – if we can’t maintain a redeemed community in some sort of order, how are we to bring healing to the community of the world? Do we have any moral or spiritual authority to try and heal communities in the world if we refuse to heal the communities in Christ?

@Geoff

I didn’t know Brent Rue – he was more contemporaries of my parents (also now pastoring in the Vineyard). But I do remember him as being a quality man who had a very positive impact on those of us here in Edmonton (Canada). He left us too early.

@Christine

“It will be far easier for the one corrupt leader to cause problems if power in concentrated (and if power doesn’t corrupt, corruption is certainly attracted to power). Sometimes institutions even make it easer for the corrupt to get into power than for those who are not. An institution that puts power into the wrong hands will be very problematic. ”

This is something I can agree with because it acknowledges the human heart as the problem and the institution as tool for its expression.

“I’m a change-it-from-within sort of person (although I’m not sure that works for everyone). I’d rather advocate institutional reform from within.”

I’m in agreement here as well. We’re not going to change much of anything by being outside critics. We are going to see change when we become part of the solution. I don’t see leaving the church as a positive step in a number of ways.

“But would it be bad, then, to criticize structures that promote the wrong attitude, for instance? I’m guessing your point had more to do with the fact that people will take these criticisms personally, that they are still criticisms of how certain people act, and should therefore always be loving and with a positive message about how things should be?”

For me the fact that the criticism is levied towards people is only part of the issue. But when we’re dealing with people, even when there’s problems, it’s best to build up, not tear down. One is constructive, the other destructive.

That’s not at all to say that we don’t address problems and talk about hard things. Quite the opposite. That is necessary. But we address problems in a way that at its heart is building up. And that doesn’t mean we’re all soft and flowery, etc. Some times we do need to speak direct. But that can all still be done in a heart that is fixed on building up and free from a critical spirit. Even a little leaven changes the loaf. Even just a hint of a critical spirit can really sour things.

The analogy that comes to mind is a parent disciplining a child. Discipline is hard (for both parent and child) but it’s necessary and is done (or should be) out of love for the child (Proverbs 3:12, 13:24) that they may live. When the discipline is rendered in love, it becomes ultimately a positive experience. If there’s any hint of anger, control, abusiveness, etc, in the discipline it sours the whole experience and is not able to bring the life it is supposed to.

For me, the main part of the problem is the fundamental nature of criticism and the heart position that it puts us in. I like this quote that I saw on Erwin McManus’ Twitter feed: “There is a huge difference between critical thinking and thinkers who are critical. The first solves problems the latter causes problems.”

The heart position of a ‘critical thinker’ and ‘a thinker who is critical’ is different. From all that I’ve learned from scripture (theology) and psychology, a critical person is such because of bitterness / bitterness rooted judgments (even if they’re subtle and covert). Those things never produce good fruit, only destruction.

My main concern is that as we seek to change things and move forward with the things that we believe Jesus is calling us toward that we do so with a pure heart. Jesus seemed tremendously concerned with that as he was bringing change – constantly addressing issues of pure hearts with the religious leaders.

Even if we attempt change to right an injustice but do so without a pure heart, we then become the part of the rottenness that brings destruction. THIS is where I believe the issue is. And this is where I believe a lot of the rhetoric against institutions falls down because not only does it most often ignore the central problem (heart issues), it also abdicates critics of their responsibility for their own heart issues and how it affects the situation. Hence my call to bring heart issues into primary focus. If it works for Jesus, it should work for us.

–
As for your last two paragraphs, I think you and I may think quite similar. Some times you do need to go to another place that is free from issues that don’t seem like they’ll change. Other times, we can help develop communities that do offer alternative ways that appear to be more effective in forming meaningful community that is effective in its Jesus given mission.