institution vs. movement
on the previous post, there's been a lot of discussion on the idea of the "institutionalization" of the cgGc, as opposed to our roots (and hopeful future) as a movement. as a bit of an outsider and observer to some of the previous conversations, i'm a little lost in the lingo.
i tend to associate an institution as a good thing, a thing of permanence; and specifically in Christianity, as an organization that sets up places of learning (e.g. seminaries), that holds its member accountable to teach right doctrine and wards of false teachers, and that acts as a training ground and resource base for those spreading the Word throughout the world (e.g. elder training and church planting). i think the use of the term "institution" on this blog means something else.
i tend to think of movements as something that flows and spreads quickly, but is generally hard to define or pin down. this has its advantages of not being held down to the tendencies of bureaucracy and red-tape, but it often has a lack of cohesion and has difficulty holding its members together under a common set of principles and understanding of truth, and thus parts of the same "movement" might actually be working against one another because of the lack of defining boundaries of the group. i think you guys might have a more clear definition of what you mean by a movement.
i would appreciate some clarification so that we can properly understand each other and that i might be able to constructively contribute more to what's being said. God bless you, brothers.
Labels: definition, institution, movement
posted by John at 5:45 PM
10 Comments:
Walt, your post is exactly what this blog needs. I am profoundly grateful for your interaction and your point is well taken.
The problem is that churches and Christianity are declining in America and in fact at even greater rate in the West in general (England, Australia). In the CGGC, there is no growth of overall churches or overall attendance and hasn't been for many years.
Historically (and even today, such as China), this problem does not turn around without a strong focused movement led by apostolic type leaders.
I love the Churches of God and would love to see them take a lead in turning around this loss of Christian traction in the US, but they will have to make some leadership changes to do so.
On the other hand, I was interested in Dan's comment on the post below because if there isn't wide dissatisfaction with our current condition, a change in leadership would be a waste of leadership.
Walt,
The short version of this post is that institutions are good, institutionalism is bad.
Read on for why I would say this...
I agree that a distinction should be made between some of the terms used. From my vantage point, institutions are necessary to sustain positive practices. The problem occurs when we focus on the institution itself instead of focusing upon what the institution promotes.
For example, the CGGC as an organization (or institution) should be promoting the practices associated with strong apostolic leadership. These practices assist in the development of a strong biblical tradition that invites churches into the movement of what God is doing on earth (before they were called "Christians" followers of Jesus Christ were referred to as "The Way"). If a strong institution exists that promotes constructive practices, then we will come to lift up those who most positively display those characteristics associated with the particular practices we promote.
The concerns expressed lately on this blog suggest that the CGGC is more focused on sustaining the institution than on the radical leadership needed for the 21st century. The problem is instiutionalism, not the institution itself.
Here are some questions to consider:
- What characteristics (or virtues) do we most desire in our leadership?
- What practices are necessary to develop, sustain, and celebrate those characteristics?
- How do we develop a leadership structure to promote those positive practices?
- What tradition do we desire to pass along to our children?
One of the potential problems of institutionalism is that we take our by-laws or belief statements and attempt to fit everyone into the same mold. The questions above work from the other perspective - we start with the outcomes we desire and build a structure from there.
More can be said, but I'll stop here for now.
For those who have read this far, I am greatly influenced by the work of the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, who is greatly influenced by the work of Aristotle.
Brian (and others),
I hope I didn't give the impression in my other post that I think that everything is great and nothing needs to change. That is not the case. A movement can never rest right?
I think that change is needed and will always be needed.
My own church is an example of a microscale of our demonination I think. For the last 15-20 years they have been well loved and cared for. There is much stablity and a real level of maturity and desire to please the Lord.
But here's the thing: They are wide open now to my leadership 'moving' our church in a more radical way. The more I teach, preach and lead, they more they respond. They are extremely open because they know I love them. I have been here before being a pastor, a luxury most don't have.
I believe that our denomination will be open to more apostolic leadership too. They first need to know that it's for love of the Lord and the church, something all of you do have.
But who will lead? Is it the case that we want it to happen but are waiting for someone else to make it happen?
@brian, i've seen/heard the same things concerning the global Church, and i share your desire to see a great turn-about in our day.
@brent, as an engineer, i understand the benefits (and perhaps necessity) of starting with the end or goal in mind.
@dan, i agree with you: "ecclesia semper reformanda", the church must always be reformed.
i thank you all for your help in understanding what you mean by not wanting to get stuck in "institutionalism". you (collectively) have talked about wanting to be more of a "movement" again. so going back to brent's idea of starting with the goal in mind, what exactly to do you mean by "movement"? what characterizes an organization/denomination as such? and specifically, what do you see in the cGgc that needs to change (either added or removed) for it to regain "movement" status?
From my experience, regional administrators can be of best service to the local churches and pastors by focusing upon three things:
1) By assisting a pastor and church when a new pastor is arriving.
2) By assisting a pastor and church when an existing pastor is leaving.
3) By stepping in when a problem arises that requires conference/regional intervention.
I am skeptical of ability of the CGGC leadership to serve in an apostolic capacity. Local pastors can serve in this role, but I'm not sure our current structure really is built for this to occur.
Brent
Brent,
Your list of ways regional administrators can help pastors/churches was interesting to me and I'm glad you shared it. Partly because I've asked on a couple of occasions what it was they do and I've yet to get an answer. But also, it appears to me this is what they do do (from my experience), and I don't know if I agree with it. Of course, I say that, and I know we are all different, and I am as difficult a person as there is, but...
I agree they should assist in the ways you suggest, but it seems to me that when a new pastor comes to a church they need to be allowed to get to know the people of that church. Rather than being a new target to serve on all the various regional committees and whatnot.
Also, speaking for myself, when I first became a pastor (and I've been at it for 10 years for those of you who don't know), I didn't even know what kind of help I needed. And problems were at a minimum during that "honeymoon" period. However, it is later, after having been there awhile, that I could have used some help. I think it has been documented that many pastors suffer with discouragement, loneliness and depression. And these aren't usually new pastors, but those who have been there awhile. Where are these people supposed to turn for help? Wouldn't it be nice if there were some support in the region/denom for this? Or maybe there is and I just don't know about it.
I know this wasn't the point of what you were saying, but it shed some light on some things for me (not about you, but in general). I also think it raises a question that's been asked on this blog in the past: For those pastors who want to stay connected with the institution, but feel the need to break out in more of a "movement mode" (for lack of a better term), what kind of support can, or should, they expect from the denomination (at the regional or national level)? Is there support for this or are we on our own? Put another way: what is the expectation from the denom for our pastors? Are we simply to fill out reports, put on a Sunday show, and keep our mouths shut otherwise; or are we supposed to be passionate, caring sons-o-bitches on mission with God in the redemption of all things through the power of the Gospel? (obviously that's not just directed at you, Brent. I'd appreciate some input from anyone).
Dan Horwedel
Dan,
In my region (Allegheny), I've seen on many occasions where announcements are made about new positions or new facilities being added to our church camp and when the question is asked (often by me) "But has anyone ever asked whether or not we really need this?" the conversation continues as if no one has spoken.
So I guess I wrote those three suggestions just assuming that it is a given that regions are going to hire administrators - independent of whether or not they are necessary (a topic which is worth debating further). Please understand, this is NOT intended as a direct judgement on the people filling those positions. It is intended as a judgement on the system that is in place.
As far as new pastors, I was thinking more organizationally and not so much ministry oriented - things like when annual reports are due, what meetings will be held throughout the year, what forms of evaluation are expected, etc.
I'll be more blunt than my last post about my expectations for regional leadership: help me when I arrive, help me when I call you with a problem (and not when you think there is a problem that requires you to intercede unannounced), help me when I leave. Otherwise, stay out. In my last position, all three times of transition/need were horribly handled by regional oversight.
I'm not optimistic that formal leadership, as it currently stands, is built to sustain a movement. It is built with an eye towards institutionalism.
I’ll admit that my first reaction to the Grass Roots conference was "Really? Do we need ANOTHER conference on this?" But at the same time, the blog’s conversation lately has helped me realize that connections formed through those avenues may be necessary for this moment in time.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Brent,
Ah, the bluntness helped. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said.
And, like you, I'm not trying to pass judgment on anyone, because I really have no clue what role our regional administrators are supposed to serve. I do think they *can* serve a valuable purpose even in a movement situation. But if no one is clear on what that is, then, yes, it would seem it's going to contribute to nothing but institutionalism.
Thanks.
*transfered from previous post*
fran,
thanks again for your well-put definition of a movement:
"is faith burning at the level of individual hearts, contagiously spreading through the larger culture, gathered in communities that are decentralized in leadership, with local church leaders drinking deeply from a well filled with a particular bent of gospel and mission that is flowing from apostolic leaders."
you described well the individual and personal yet also public and corporate dynamic of the Christian life, the need for evangelism and for responsibility of the local church and its leaders for themselves and their actions and renewal. the deference to upper leadership has, in my understanding, turned into a "pass the buck" sort of thinking in most of modern church life.
could you clarify what you meant by "decentralized in leadership" and "a particular bent of gospel and mission"?
also, i was very glad you added "it is not that shared doctrinal statements, established institutions for training, or a common credentialing process are bad things in and of themselves."
that was one of the reasons for this post. there are many out there using words like "emerging" and "postmodern" who are running from orthodox, historical beliefs and a system of keeping people and churches accountable for what the believe, and i was hoping, and am relieved, that you are not among them. i do not believe that doing away with common statements, summaries and affirmations of what we believe the Bible teaches, or getting rid of basic structures to teach these, resolve disputes and guard against wolves, would be profitable.
i also agree that this has been overly built upon and, in certain ways, become a hindrance and a stumbling block to Spirit-led movement, and that this needs to be remedied. as brent said, sometimes the organization, when it becomes institutionalized, becomes overbearing.
it is places like this that are needed so that a balance between necessary oversight and accountability on the part of the organization, and life and vibrancy and responsibility at the level of the local church, can be reached through clear, humble, and blunt communication.
i look forward to more conversation on how that balance can be reached.
I think that there are examples of the balance that Fran is talking about all around us. Where movements can exist yet the institution still remains as a help mate to it congregations. To me the first example is the Southern Baptist Convention. It has a very decentralized government structure, all congregations are autonomus yet connected.
Everyone knows what the denomination believes and if they choose to affliate then there are certain standards that have to be upheld. The denomination, nor it's regional, and association directors make decisions that impact local congregations, they only serve as a resource to those who are in need.
Another example of how they are decentralized is that they license, ordain and call their own Pastors. And for some reason over the years they have been able to stay pretty dedicated to there beliefs by doing that.
I believe they are still the largest Denomination in the US and still plant more churches each year than any other group in the U.S. yearly.
So what movements are they part of? There is the Spurgen Movement which is a movement to establish congregations that have boards of elders not just one elder ie the Pastor.
There are also groups who have partnered with the Acts 29 movement wich is a movement of missional churches that are theologically conservative yet socially liberal. They also have movements that are making communion a weekly thing and some are becoming even more liturgical. Heck, we use one of their guys (Glen Smith) to advise our denomination.
I am not contending that I agree with there theology, I am using them as an example of a decentalized institution.
Another example that would be closer to us in theology is the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. Many of their churches look very similar to ours. That is where I came from. Although they only consider themselves a fellowship of churches,most of the thier new generation ministers consider them a denomination. In the 90's they wer the fastest growing denomination in the U.S. by member.
I think their name says it all, independent. Yet they have a yearly denominational meeting for fellowship and the gathering/sharing of ideas. They have colleges all over the U.S. even some with free tuition yet they are completely independent. They are a touch to loose for my liking yet still an interesting denomination and movement.
Others you might find similar are IBFC churches, Grace Evangelical Brethern (Neil Cole's denomination)and I would even consider the Assemblies of God to fall into that grouping of churches. Minus the GEB I think you will find those groups that have a more decentralized denomination tend to grow faster and have greater expansion for the Kingdom.
There are actually quite a bit more, but I will leave these as examples of decentralized church governments. I hope this helps.
Denominational studies is something I get excited about.
Post a Comment
<< Home