The Problem(s) with the “Institutional” Church

The Problem(s) with the “Institutional” Church August 3, 2015

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 6.59.49 PMNo matter how many define it or (don’t define it) and no matter how many are using the expression, lots gets packaged into a tight and hot bundle when someone critiques the “institutional” church. Here’s “Daniel”:

Daniel: I see the institution, the hierarchy, the bureaucracy as crippling the body of Christ. I see it as creating this false dichotomy: If you really want to be influential and important and do something for Jesus, you have to go to seminary, you’ve got to get your degree, you’ve got to get ordained, and then you’ve got to get a microphone, and then you can start making a “difference” in the world. But that has nothing to do with what Jesus came here to start. Nothing.

This is from Josh Packard and Ashleigh Hope’s book about The Dones — the formerly active and now no longer in attendance at church, a book called Church Refugees (p. 53).

How do you respond to that complaint by “Daniel”?

Packard and Hope offer a fair and important warning-observation, after admitting that no organization exists without structure, without some kind of institutionalization … yet…:

Sociologically, we know from over a century of studying these kinds of organizations that at some point, the bureaucracy takes over, and much activity in the organization ends up being geared toward its survival (54).

They weren’t frustrated by the existence of structure; they were frustrated when they felt the structure actively prevented them from doing the work they felt called to do. They were frustrated when they found themselves constantly and solely working to keep the organization going.

Heavily centralized and hierarchical organizations tend to concentrate power and gradually compel all activity inward, stifling innovation, creativity, and opposing ideas (56).

One reason The Dones are done is because they wanted to do the work of the church but found too much or only bureaucracy. They are walking away, not from the work of the church, but church work! Notice the tension in this story about “Katie”:

[Katie] told me about her dream to start an art-therapy group in this inner-city neighborhood where she hves and where her former congregation is located…. At first, she was hoping for some support from her congregation for supplies and materials, but eventually asked simply for space to meet. She showed me emails in which the church leaders expressed concern that her plan didn’t include anything about getting the kids to become regular church members or to accept Jesus into their lives. Katie replied that a large number of the kids in the neighborhood were Muslim and that she didn’t feel comfortable playing the role of evangelizer…. “It just got to the point that it was so painfully obvious to me that the art therapy was making more of a real impact in the world, and was feeding me more spiritually as a group of people committed to relationships than my home congregation had ever done.” (58-59)

Packard and Hope continue with this telling observation:

Katie’s story reveals the tension between a church worried about pouring resources into something that doesn’t have an identifiable return on investment and a congregant who simply wants to act, to be “on the giving side,” as Katie put it. There was nothing in Katie’s plan that was geared to lead directly to more bodies in the pews or dollars in the collection plate (59).

What do you think? Should they have supported her so-called “giving” ministry or not? Notice the language of Packard and Hope: “identifiable return” vs. “act” and “giving side” and “more bodies in the pews or dollars.” This kind of language prejudices the whole discussion: the issue here is what is a church and what is church ministry and what does a church do with its resources. Is the church an NGO? Does a church get to decide how its resources are used in line with its mission and theology? Or..?

We need to move on … many of The Dones experience the church as a corporation with the pastor as at least 51% of power as the CEO. Here is how they put it:

The problem, as they saw it, was that there was no true participation in their churches. People were either doing the things that the person or people in charge wanted done, or they weren’t allowed to do much of anything. There was no freedom to truly shape their own community (61).

So I ask how central the following set of observations is to The Dones?

All of these data have convinced me that there is a truly sizable subset of congregants, and the recently dechurched, who desire to be active participants in a community of believers but aren’t willing to be the mouthpiece of someone else’s vision. They want to be able to make meaningful decisions and participate as equals in their communities. Too often, they say, church staff and pastors are willing to empower lay leaders, paid staff, and volunteers to do meaningless, mundane, and unfulfilling work while the senior pastor retains all of the authority and ability to make creative, meaningful decisions on behalf of the congregation (62).

For most of The Dones their passions for community and ministry and service continue in (1) civic and political engagement, (2) small groups or house churches, or (3) informal but spiritually meaningful gatherings (68-76).


Browse Our Archives