Institutional Church Membership (Part 2)

[johnb]

Hi thombomodulin,

I know this may not answer your question directly but I found this small bit by Steve Gregg under ‘Ecclesiology, Submitting to Church Leadership’.
Although this was originally in the context of submitting to church leadership, it may give some food for thought as it pertains to ‘facility ownership’.

“6. Institutional-type of leadership can be avoided or minimized if the fellowship can avoid acquiring church real estate (homes and rented halls can usually suffice for normal-sized fellowships groups), hiring salaried staff (why can't the members of the family conduct all of their duties as volunteers—you know, as ministries?), or conducting elaborate programs (simple charity, missions support, and discipleship should be a way of life, not a program). If such trappings cannot be altogether avoided, then there is nothing wrong with organizing to the point of meeting such needs (e.g., Acts 6:1-6). The danger is that an ad hoc organizational strategy may become permanent—and even defining of the function of the group.”

[Homer]

The "institutional Church" and church membership is a somewhat confusing topic to me. I suspect that those who object to the institutional church are more concerned with the acknowledged abuses of some (most?) churches than with actual institutionalized church. The difficulty, it seems, is in how the word is being used in a pejorative sense, as though all institutionalization is bad. Consider Webster's definition of institution:

3 a : a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture

It seems to me the church (universal) fits this description. But I suspect those who decry institutionalism have the definition of institutionalism in mind:

1 : emphasis on organization (as in religion) at the expense of other factors

It is easy to agree with the concern. However, I contend that the church was an institution, almost from the beginning, in any fair sense of the word. Leaders (apostles) were appointed, the church has a head, and soon other positions were appointed and a division of labor made:

Acts 6:1-7 (New King James Version)

1. Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4. but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
5. And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6. whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.
7. Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Here we see see the church was growing rapidly. On the day of Pentercost there were 3000 souls added. then we are informed that Peter's second sermon brought another 2000 men, and probably as many women, into the church. There were hundreds in the church before Pentecost. The church may number 10,000 or more by this time. How could the twelve summon the multitude if there was not some sort of list, at least in the heads of certain people, of who to summon? There must have been some sort of at least informal organizantion of the church, and if not a written list, or lists of "members", it must have been in someone's head. How could they have known those who could vote as opposed to mischief makers who showed up? And we see that the serving of the needs of the poor was delegated and formally separated from the task of teaching and evangelizing. Later, in the writings of Paul, we see that a formal list of the poor widows was utilized. It is not difficult to believe that in a larger church they would also have a membership role.

For those who decry institutionalization, I would ask that the institutional "elephant in the room" be considered. Are parachurch organizations part of the church or not? If not, and they certainly are not biblical, why do we support or have anything to do with them? Are not World Vision, Wycliffe, Prison Fellowship, YWAM, the local homeless mission, et al, institutions in any fair understanding of the word? My wife and I have supported some of them for many years and never gave it a second thought.

It seems to me that institutionalization of the church, and church membership, is no more than a tool that can be used or, as has too often been the case, abused.

Earlier in the thread Darin mentioned his family was considering joining a church that is paedobaptist and was concerned about becomming a member. To me this is a far greater issue than church membership. His childen may grow up thinking they have been baptized and never obey the Lord's command as a result. There is nothing in the scriptures for or against church "membership" while baptism is basic christian doctrine.

[johnb]

Hi Homer,
I think when you use the word ‘institution’ (in the way you have stated institutions as “a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture”) is when I would use the word ‘organization’. In that sense I would agree that the Body of Christ is an organization/institution, but even more prominent than that, I would say it is an organism that happens to be organized under certain essential Christian doctrines and to my mind, if we are describing it in that sense, then it is a living and breathing body.

On the other hand, my experience with the word ‘institution’ admittedly does have some derogatory baggage with it, whether it is in reference to the Body of Christ or not. When I hear the use of the word ‘institution’ in reference to the Body of Christ it seems, more often than not, what is being referred to is the internal makeup of a localized group of Christians which separates itself in various ways from other Christian groups on the same street or in the same town. That internal makeup usually consists of offices that have authority over other Christians, formal memberships, certain giving or tithing requirements, must-hold and agree to doctrines (other than the essentials), must remain a part of our group even if you see another group in more need, must obey the person in office even if he’s wrong, etc... The word ‘institution’ described in this way tends to seem unrelational, law driven and a bit lifeless, so when I hear it described in this way and applied to something that is supposed to be living and breathing and loved dearly by Jesus as His Bride, for me, there tends to be a rub.

For those who decry institutionalization, I would ask that the institutional "elephant in the room" be considered. Are parachurch organizations part of the church or not? If not, and they certainly are not biblical, why do we support or have anything to do with them? Are not World Vision, Wycliffe, Prison Fellowship, YWAM, the local homeless mission, et al, institutions in any fair understanding of the word? My wife and I have supported some of them for many years and never gave it a second thought.

I think this is a good point.
I believe that YWAM, Prison Fellowship, etc… are institutions also (in the way you have stated institutions as “a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture” ). I also believe they are a true part of the Body of Christ much like the institutional local church that my family and I attend. However, I still believe that many parachurches and local churches have marks of institutionalism (in the way you have stated institutions as “emphasis on organization (as in religion) at the expense of other factors” ) where offices, money handling, program formats etc… are many times looked at as the driving force of the whole thing that keeps it running and effective in its ministry instead of the Holy Spirit Himself. At that point the focus seems to be on man instead of God who seems to end up being the ‘factor that is expendable’. I think those parachurch and local church institutions could operate without signed on formal papers, contracts, offices, etc… and simply give, help, teach etc…without it being a ‘signed on’ sort of a thing. For example, my mother and father in-law go to a boys juvenile correctional facility every Tuesday night to just simply share the Lord with them. They didn’t previously know any of them, they just felt led by the Spirit to show up and talk about Jesus with them, and they have never set up any kind of official office or have ever signed on to any sort of paperwork to make it an ‘official institutionalized ministry’ and they don’t plan to (they have also had the opportunity to baptize a handful of the boys).
That being said, I do believe that Christian institutions have true Christians that operate in them but it seems that Christian institutions, in and of themselves, make it difficult for our brothers and sisters who have ministries in those institutions to keep their focus off their ‘position in the Lord’ and keep their focus on ‘the Lord’s position in them’. I’m sure we have all seen (or have been) Christians who get involved in some kind of ministry and completely stop focusing on the personal growth with Jesus because the mistake is made that the ministry in the institution is the same thing as the personal relationship and growth with Him.