A Third Alternative
In his outstanding book, Transforming Mission, David Bosch reminds his readers that all was not perfect in the early church. Paul's letters are a blatant reminder of the problems encountered in the early church. In speaking of where the early church failed, Bosch states that "it ceased to be a movement and turned into an institution." He goes on to say, "First, we have to ask whether it is fair to expect a movement to survive only as a movement. Either the movement disintegrates or it becomes an institution - this is simply a sociological law. Every religious group that started out as a movement and managed to survive, did so because it was gradually institutionalized: the Waldensians, the Moravians, the Quakers, the Pentecostals, and many more."
Bosch refers to Niebuhr when he contrasts the differences between an institution and a movement: "the one is conservative, the other progressive; the one is more or less passive, yielding to influence from the outside, the other is active, influencing rather than being influenced; the one looks to the past, the other to the future. ...In addition, we might add, the one is anxious, the other is prepared to take risks; the one guards boundaries, the other crosses them."
Bosch illustrates the difference between an institution and a movement by comparing the Christian communities of Jerusalem and Antioch in the forties of the first century AD. "The Antioch church's pioneering spirit precipitated an inspection by Jerusalem. It was clear that the Jerusalem party's concern was not mission, but consolidation; not grace, but law; not crossing frontiers, but fixing them; not life, but doctrine; not movement, but institution."
Bosch notes that when the movement of the first century became an institution, "it also lost much of its verve. Its white-hot convictions, poured into hearts of the first adherents, cooled down and became crystallized codes, solidified institutions, and petrified dogmas. The prophet became a priest of the establishment, charisma became office, and love became routine. The horizon was no longer the world but the boundaries of the local parish. The impetuous missionary torrent of earlier years was tamed into a still-flowing rivulet and eventually into a stationary pond."
All this that Bosch describes of institutionalism in the preceding paragraphs is common to western Christianity. While history proves Bosch to be correct concerning movements being institutionalized if their effects are to last, I'm not willing to accept the institutionalization of a movement of God. There has got to be a third alternative beyond movement and institution. Could it be that God is looking for a people just bold and brash enough not to resign themselves to what has gone before, but faithful enough to take God at his word when he says, "Behold I do a new thing!"
So, where do we go from here and how do you propose we get there?
Bosch refers to Niebuhr when he contrasts the differences between an institution and a movement: "the one is conservative, the other progressive; the one is more or less passive, yielding to influence from the outside, the other is active, influencing rather than being influenced; the one looks to the past, the other to the future. ...In addition, we might add, the one is anxious, the other is prepared to take risks; the one guards boundaries, the other crosses them."
Bosch illustrates the difference between an institution and a movement by comparing the Christian communities of Jerusalem and Antioch in the forties of the first century AD. "The Antioch church's pioneering spirit precipitated an inspection by Jerusalem. It was clear that the Jerusalem party's concern was not mission, but consolidation; not grace, but law; not crossing frontiers, but fixing them; not life, but doctrine; not movement, but institution."
Bosch notes that when the movement of the first century became an institution, "it also lost much of its verve. Its white-hot convictions, poured into hearts of the first adherents, cooled down and became crystallized codes, solidified institutions, and petrified dogmas. The prophet became a priest of the establishment, charisma became office, and love became routine. The horizon was no longer the world but the boundaries of the local parish. The impetuous missionary torrent of earlier years was tamed into a still-flowing rivulet and eventually into a stationary pond."
All this that Bosch describes of institutionalism in the preceding paragraphs is common to western Christianity. While history proves Bosch to be correct concerning movements being institutionalized if their effects are to last, I'm not willing to accept the institutionalization of a movement of God. There has got to be a third alternative beyond movement and institution. Could it be that God is looking for a people just bold and brash enough not to resign themselves to what has gone before, but faithful enough to take God at his word when he says, "Behold I do a new thing!"
So, where do we go from here and how do you propose we get there?
I think these are some of the most important questions facing the organic church today. Will this simply be a movement that disintegrates, or will it become an institution that stagnates? Or is there another option? Like you, I have to believe there is.
I think I am as concerned about seeing lively, spirit filled house meetings turn into mini versions of what most of us thought we were leaving behind. As I am concerned about seeing them disintegrate or just meander aimlessly for lack of any appreciation of history. The movement that has to make every mistake the church has ever made all over again one house church at a time because the only value is novelty is one that I do not want to be a part of.
I think an important part of where we go from here has to include prayerfully, thoughtfully exploring how God sees his church. Using his word as a filter through which church history must flow in order to be a part of the present. Also using it to filter visions of the future church that we would aspire to. Asking regularly what God says about what his church is and what does he say it is not. Letting our agreement with him define who we are, and determine what we do. Asking ourselves, do we value what God values? Do our actions reflect that?
Along those lines, the two things that jump out at me are first putting relationships ahead of religion. Fortunately for all of us, God put reconciling a broken relationship ahead of the law. If he had loved the law more than he loved us, we’d all be forever lost. Getting this backwards is where I think the traditional church has often gone astray. Secondly, I think that keeping what is eternal, prioritized over what is temporal will be critical in becoming the bride that Jesus will marry. I think that this is where being a movement and an institution both fall short. They tend to make us value things in the here and now that will not exist for eternity. If we are to demonstrate to the world that the kingdom of Heaven is at hand, and not just off in the sweet by and by, we must reflect the kingdom’s values today. People (even those who do not know Jesus) will last forever (with God or without him) and therefore have eternal value. It seems doubtful to me that any institutions or movements will exist for all eternity (short of the church). There will come a time when there will be no subdivisions of God’s church that make us ask each other “are you Baptist or Lutheran?” I think the same is true of the movements that we are often so proud to be a part of today that disintegrate and are gone tomorrow. There seems to be the ever-present temptation to find temporal things that we latch onto and end up loving more than Christ, and more than his church. While it should be obvious, I think we too often forget to prioritize loving God, and loving people, with a priority that shows we know that both are eternal. It seems that our most common sins involve treating what is temporal as if it were eternal as well.
Reply to this