Can the Church Survive Itself?? (part uno)

Well, I guess that depends on what you refer to as "the church"...

I mean, are we talking about the North American church, the Russian church, the Korean church, etc.? Or are we talking about your particular denomination and how the powers that rest at the top of that particular pyramid think that they should tackle the cultural obstacles before them (and you)? Or are we talking about the global church (I really hope not, cuz that's way too complex an entity to try to speak generally about).

So, for the sake of clarity, let's define the church into two camps: Institutional & Relational. I choose this language, because you can redefine either into various cultural iterations wherever you may find yourself in history or the world. And let's also be clear that we are not casting aspersions on either model. Each have strengths and weaknesses. It is in these strengths and weaknesses that the actual issues lie, in my view...

The strength of the Institutional church is in it's organization and ability to mobilize groups of people in a common direction. This has been a considerable blessing to the world, in that it is the American church that is largely responsible for much of the benevolence and charitable giving in the world. It is the Institutional church that has taken stands against social injustice and championed many of the social revolutions that have brought needed changes into the world.

So how does the Institutional church do this? The answer lies in the structure. And while there are certainly diverse interpretations (i.e. denominations, styles, etc.) they all have some common structural characteristics:

• Geographically focused- whether it's a mega-church meeting in a stadium or a home church meeting in, well... a home, there is a fixed meeting point
• Time focused- all attendees know that "church" happens at a certain time each week, and the events of the service have certain time allocations
• Hierarchically focused- regardless of the "flavor" of the individual body, the Institutional church has some kind of established hierarchical system for governing itself and controlling its direction

There are other characteristics, but I think these are the major ones. The underlying commonality is that the Institutional church is built on systems. Systems that lay down the underpinnings and actually create the structure itself. Systems defining the beliefs. Systems regulating the expectations of the parishioners. Systems governing the finances. Systems defining who is eligible for leadership. Lots of systems, almost like the programming in a computer or complex piece of software.

So the Institutional church can be recognized by its adherence and dependence upon its systems. It's strengths as discussed above lie in its abilty to leverage those systems toward a noble or Godly goal. In my next post, I'm gonna dig into some of the inherent weaknesses of the systematic approach.