institutional church?

The Church
User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

institutional church?

Post by 21centpilgrim » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:29 pm

Institutional church?
Can we define the term? I find many talking down on it. Is it a gathering that meets in a building?
Where the leaders are paid/salaried?
Where they have designated leaders?

the gathering of believers necessitates various kinds of orginization depending on the size i guess. What causes that gathering to become part of the dreaded 'institution'?

Since i hear so much foder ditected at 'the institutional church', a clarity of terms would be appreciated.
Thanks
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: institutional church?

Post by Homer » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:37 pm

Hi 21centpilgrim,

You wrote:
Since i hear so much foder ditected at 'the institutional church', a clarity of terms would be appreciated.
I agree with you. When people speak negatively about the "institutional church" they need to explain what they mean. It seems to me that by any fair definition of terms Christ established an institution in that the Church is organized for a purpose. It has a head, Jesus, and at least the office of elder, deacon, and, to me at least, deaconess. Also evangelists and missionaries. It certainly takes organizing to get missionaries in the field.

Perhaps the following definitions would assist those who use the term "institutionsl church" in defining what is objectionable:

Institution

noun

1. a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose.

2. an established law, practice, or custom.
"the institution of marriage"

Institutional

1. of, relating to, or established by institution.

2. of or relating to organized establishments, foundations, societies, or the like, or to the buildings devoted to their work.

3. of the nature of an institution.

4. characterized by the blandness, drabness, uniformity, and lack of individualized attention attributed to large institutions that serve many people:
institutional food.

5. (of advertising) having as the primary object the establishment of goodwill and a favorable reputation rather than the immediate sale of the product.

6. pertaining to institutes or principles, especially of jurisprudence.

I would certainly agree that the Roman Catholic church and others have gone too far in that "the Church" has come to mean an institution including the Pope down to the priests, etc. and not the "common" people.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

institutional church?

Post by jaydam » Sun Apr 19, 2015 2:13 am

When I talk about the "institutional church" I typically mean a church structured like a corporation.

I have begun to try and use the term "corporate church" more because I feel it conveys the idea of today's corporately styled churches with the lead pastor who fills the role of CEO, the "lower" elders who are the board, a corporate headquarters, etc.

The church "employees" are the priests who serve the "consumers" who fill the pews. The goal in corporate church is no different than any other corporation, to have the largest customer base possible for your product, ie. butts in YOUR pews.

Because butts in other pews is money not coming into your corporate pockets. Churches compete like corporations.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: institutional church?

Post by jriccitelli » Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:19 pm

Can we define the term? I find many talking down on it. Is it a gathering that meets in a building?
I am going to assume the term we all here believe is 'Church' means the actual body of Christ. Most of us would probably agree that what we have meeting in buildings or anywhere should be the 'Ecclesia' or an 'assembly' of believers, which 'should' be: The Body of Christ (that would be the ideal). What I and many others are saying is that: the institution that purports itself as the church is most often corrupted by its supposed leaders.

Where the leaders are paid/salaried?
This is where many would argue that: turning the offering or sharing material goods with evangelists in preaching the word - into an office / a salary / a business: corrupted the motivation of service, corrupted the work of ministry, corrupted the Gospel, corrupted Gods intention and peoples attention to God.

Where they have designated leaders?
'Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ' We understand men should not be called leaders, men are not our leaders, this is Gods place and role in a believers life. And that this should not be an office. The Church should have understood we are 'all equal' in Christ, we can have pastors, elders and the like, call them leaders if you need to, but the message of the historical institutions has been 'the leaders' are our 'leaders' rather than 'guides' and servants equal and sharing the same Spirit of Christ that is given to all believers. The simple 'roles' of pastors and bishops and Elders was never meant to usurp the equality of the Spirit, or the Role of His Spirit in a believer - which they, the institution, took from the believers. The opportunity to simply serve and help maintain simple order, and preach the word of God was turned into an un-Godly, un-scriptural corporation, and it continues as our chief model of church today. And like it has been said here before: like Rome, the Reformation simply changed the office of Bishop Priest and Pope into the office of Pastor.

The gathering of believers necessitates various kinds of orginization depending on the size i guess. What causes that gathering to become part of the dreaded 'institution'?
When we put a man at the head. The message is and was 'Jesus is Lord'. We are all followers and believers, and if Jesus is truly our Lord then He is our leader, He is The Head of His Church, He is The Pastor, and He is our Rock and High Priest. That is The institution of Christ.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: institutional church?

Post by mattrose » Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:34 pm

I think it's an easier thing to feel than to define (though I realize that makes it rather subjective).

Most simply put, the institutional church (when that term is used negatively) is focused on itself as opposed to a true church that is focused on Jesus Christ. The best way to tell the difference is to listen to what the people in the 'church' talk about the most. Is it Jesus, the Kingdom, and the Scriptures? Or is it church politics, policies, and programs?

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: institutional church?

Post by TheEditor » Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:36 pm

Hi Jaydam,

I agree people use "institutional church" as a way of talking about how it should not be, all the while not adequately defining it, nor recognizing that what they are a part of may in fact be the same thing.

This is a longer post than I had hoped to make, but I though it was necessary to set the stage for my own opinion, for what it is worth.

I spent my entire life in a high control group (Jehovah's Witnesses). When I left, I had to reconstruct everything I believed from scratch because my trust was violated, and I didn't know what was true anymore. In so doing, I discovered that this issue of church institutionalization, hierarchy, "Babylonish" tendencies, is as old as the church itself. I will offer a few quotes from a few sources in the hopes it gives a glimpse into what I believe the truthful perspective is:

"I shall make use of [Babylon the Great] to illustrate corrupt Christianity; and this includes Protestantism as well as popery. Conventional Christianity is as truly corrupt as papal, and, in some respects, it is even worse. . . . The Christ exhibited in creeds and institutions is as unlike the Christ of the Gospels, as the mechanical force of the manufacturing machine, throwing off commodities for trade, is unlike the vital energy in nature that clothes the landscape with verdure and that fills the earth and the water with countless tribes of life. . . . Christianity corrupted has always been cruelly intolerant, and this, whether it is called Protestant or papal! True, it dos not shed blood as much as of yore, but if it does not take away life it may inflict life annoyances and disabilities in many respects more painful than bloodshedding. The harlot is a "mother," her progeny is numerous and ever multiplyiing. . . . The religious sects which crowd Christendom are all her daughters, and each sect has the intolerant spirit of its mother, each according to its measure is a persecutor, and, as a rule, the smaller the more virulent the spirit. Curs snarl and bark more as a rule than mastiffs. . . Such is corrupt Christianity, which is, alas! the current Christianity. It is very like the "harlot" on account of its political subserviency, worldly proclivity, and religious intolerance." David Thomas, Pulpit Commentary 1886

"Where the Word of God is preached and believed, where two or three meet in the name of Christ, there is the Church. Whatever else may be said about the Church, this is fundamental. This statement has never--not even at the present day--been understood in all its revolutionary power. The meeting of two or three must be recognized to be the Church in however imperfect a form. When a father gathers his household round him to expound the Gospel to them in his humble simple way, or where a layman, out of a full heart, proclaims the word of God to a group of young people, there is the Church. Whoever departs from this rule, whoever thinks that something else has to be added to make this a real Church, has misunderstood the meaning of the very heart of the evangelical Faith.—The Divine Imperative, Emil Brünner (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1937), page 529.


"The primary cause of the [denominational] divisions is the institutionalism and organisationalism of the churches, which, without vivifying the life of the believers in them, smothers or drives it out of the ekklesia, and makes [the churches] merely dead institutions. Christians who really have life in Christ cannot exist within such a corpse and will at last have to come out of it. But in almost all cases, those who have come out of dead institutions want to have in their place another institution or other rituals and ceremonies, only repeating the same error. Instead of turning to Christ Himself as their center, they again seek to find fellowship and spiritual security on the very same basis that failed, not realizing that it is the institution that is killing, instead of producing, life in Christ. Even the Bible itself is interpreted and understood in various ways, and so always becomes the center of sectarianism. Just in the same way, dogmas and creeds cannot bring Christian unity, because human minds are not so uniformly created that they can unite in a single dogma or creed. Even our understanding of Christ Himself cannot be the basis of unity, because He is too big to be understood by any one person or group, and therefore our limited understandings do not always coincide. One emphasizes this point about Christ, another that; and this again becomes the cause of divisions. If we will only take our fellowship with Christ as the center of Christian faith, all Christians will realize their oneness... All our fellowship, however varied, is with the same Lord, and the same Saviour is our one Head."—Kokichi Kurosaki (1886-1970), One Body in Christ [1954]

The following are a few short quotes from Simone Weil, a French Christian that is thought of as a mystic of sorts. She died in England in 1943 because she refused to eat any more daily rations than her fellow French countrymen were allowed. Some would dismiss her based on that alone, but I find her thoughts worthy of consideration:

"What frightens me is the Church as a social structure. Not only on account of its blemishes, but from the very fact that it is something social....I am aware of very strong gregarious tendencies in myself. My natural disposition is to be very easily influenced, too much influenced, and above all by anything collective. I know that if at this moment I had before me a group of twenty young Germans singing Nazi songs in chorus, a part of my soul would instantly become Nazi...
"I am afraid of the Church patriotism existing in Catholic circles. By patriotism I mean the feeling one has for a terrestrial country. I am afraid of it because I fear to catch it.

"Everybody knows that really intimate conversation is only possible between two or three. As soon as there are six or seven, collective language begins to dominate. That is why it is a complete misinterpretation to apply to the Church the words 'Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' Christ did not say two hundred, or fifty or ten. He said two or three. He said precisely that he always forms the third in the intimacy of the coversation."


Some are of the opinion that the "church" becomes institutional or "Babylonish" at the moment it becomes organized--once offices and chairs are formed it is then an image or counterfeit of the real thing. This is because there then comes into being something tangible with which a person can have a relationship that does not require God being there at all. Either way, thoughts for consideration. A person's reaction to this is likely to be largely based upon where they find themselves.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: institutional church?

Post by Homer » Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:54 pm

I'm not getting this. Did Jesus not organize a church? He appointed twelve apostles, then added Paul. He gave them authority to complete the gospel message. They in turn organized and gave responsibility to deacons and they also appointed elders. How can we say there is no organization?

It seems to me the problem is in having denominational systems with money flowing to a remote headquarters somewhere which dictates matters in the local church. A nearby, and very large denominational church a few years back had their entire pastoral staff fired by their headquarters, including their pastor of many years.

One other problem is in dividing Christians into "clergy" and "laity" with "ordained ministers" and ordination not referring to their appointment to a position in a local church but as an indelible mark, a lifetime appointment whether they have a position or not.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: institutional church?

Post by TheEditor » Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:14 pm

I'm not getting this. Did Jesus not organize a church? He appointed twelve apostles, then added Paul. He gave them authority to complete the gospel message. They in turn organized and gave responsibility to deacons and they also appointed elders. How can we say there is no organization?


Hi Homer, nothing personal, but my eye starts to twitch when I hear this. If you only knew how many times I heard this kind of thing when I was a JW. Problem is, once I left I realized that every argument the JWs used to support "organization", could be and was used by every church to support heirarchy, all the while denying they had one. I also then realized that every argument I used against the Roman Catholic Church could just as easily have been used against Jehovah's Witnesses with respects the concept of "Churchianity."

Sure, Jesus appointed Apostles. Yes, they had a job to do. But I see no reason to believe that this was a template or baton to be handed down. If that were the case, then we may as well stayed with the Catholics and merely tried to reform it from within (like Erasmus) rather then setting out (like Luther). Maybe we could have avoided the Peasant Revolt that way.....

My point is, that at it's root Christianity has nothing to do with "churches"; it has to do with individuals having a relationship with God, and recognizing others do as well, and then, using that knowledge to help others. This can be done without an official "church". All group efforts, in my opinion, should be ad hoc, that way they can be dispensed with just as easily as they were created, without leaving a huge vacuum or void in peoples lives.

I used to use this observation way back in the JW organization; Id say, "Brothers, ever notice that when a few meet together for study, nothing is really needed? When we have Book Study (a home meeting) we need a bit more structure. When we have Congregation Meetings, we need a Kingdom Hall, a parking lot, electric bills, seating, cleaning, etc. When we have Circuit Assemblies (usually 500 attend) we need Attendants, Food Service, Ushers, etc. When we have District Conventions (usually attended by 10,000) we need all of the above, plus Security. What's wrong with this picture?"

If a person needs a big fellowship, I understand. But there exists a very subtle seduction in the arrangement that I fear too many fail to recognize.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: institutional church?

Post by mattrose » Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:30 pm

TheEditor wrote:My point is, that at it's root Christianity has nothing to do with "churches"; it has to do with individuals having a relationship with God, and recognizing others do as well, and then, using that knowledge to help others. This can be done without an official "church". All group efforts, in my opinion, should be ad hoc, that way they can be dispensed with just as easily as they were created, without leaving a huge vacuum or void in peoples lives.
Wow. I'm a bit surprised by this quote. I strongly disagree. I think you have it backwards. Jesus came to start a kingdom that is made up of individuals, not save a bunch of individuals that may or may not have 'kingdom' moments. Jesus has a body made up of parts, not parts that are sometimes glued together to look like a body. Paul planted churches, not individual seeds.
"Brothers, ever notice that when a few meet together for study, nothing is really needed? When we have Book Study (a home meeting) we need a bit more structure. When we have Congregation Meetings, we need a Kingdom Hall, a parking lot, electric bills, seating, cleaning, etc. When we have Circuit Assemblies (usually 500 attend) we need Attendants, Food Service, Ushers, etc. When we have District Conventions (usually attended by 10,000) we need all of the above, plus Security. What's wrong with this picture?"
Actually, nothing is really wrong with that picture. There seems to be a misconception in this thread. The problem with the 'institutional' church is not that it is organized. Organization is not a bad thing at all. The problem with the 'institutional' church is that it is a DEAD organism. That, I suggest, is what people mean when they speak against the institutional church. It is a church that doesn't have the Spirit... doesn't have life. Or, as Bruxy Cavey put it... 'the problem with ORGANIZED RELIGION is not the 'organized' part, it's the 'religion' part. When a church just becomes a bunch of cold rituals, it's dead.

There's nothing really wrong with a levels of leadership. There's something wrong with any leadership that isn't servant leadership.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: institutional church?

Post by TheEditor » Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:07 pm

Hi Matt,

I respect your posts. You seem like a decent, humble, loving person. We have never met. We may never meet. But this statement:
Wow. I'm a bit surprised by this quote. I strongly disagree.
underscores what I wrote capping off my earlier post:
A person's reaction to this is likely to be largely based upon where they find themselves.
You have a life that is likely quite imbued with organizational fellowship. Do not doubt that influence in how you read a statement like the one I made earlier. Like I said before, I understand fully the need for some to have this kind of structure. I'll tell you a secret; When I left my former place of fellowship, I gave up something I loved. I loved door-to-door preaching; Bible teaching; Public speaking, etc. etc. Many people I have known that left were more like "Good riddance. I couldn't stand being forced to speak in front of others." People have different gifts. If I could find a way to believe that big churches is where it's at, I would have been all over it like stink on skunk. But I can't un-know what I have learned or currently believe to be the truth about such things. I do not think that people sin by attending a church. I do not think God is especially displeased with a person that goes to a church, even a large one. But I think it makes the vast majority of people who attend them swell with feelings that are a mixture of sincere devotion and pride. If you are one of the smaller percentage that doesn't yield to that temptation, good on you. :D

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”