The Church Transforming: Part 3

The last two weeks, I've been writing about a paradigm shift in the way that the church exists and operates to perform its mission.  Keep in mind as you read that I'm learning as I ponder along.  I don't have an idea where my thoughts and research will lead, but I hope it brings us to a better understanding of what the church can and should be for the future.
One primary question I'm seeking to answer is to what extent the mainline institutional church can coexist alongside or with a church model that is more organic and missional.  To answer this question we must first recognize that these two types of community structures have often co-existed in different forms and to different degrees.  For instance, within many mainline institutional churches there are gatherings and groups that may function in missional and organic ways.  Examples of this can be groups that go on mission trips together, certain small groups that operate and function without much structure and embody certain theological priorities.  My observation is that the mainstream institutional community tends to accommodate larger, more anonymous, and more loosely connected gatherings of individuals.  The extent to which these communities maintain a sense of closeness, mission, intimacy, and urgency usually depends on the strength of missional organic communities within the institution.  Depending on the nature and size of a gathering, there are natural tendencies that help determine whether a community becomes more institutionalized or organic.  There are of course major exceptions.
Take for example the Wesleyan societies in 18th century England.  These gatherings were institutional in their function but missional in their orientation.  They were interpersonal, but not in a fluid and flexible sense.  The content of the relationships was predictable and repeatable for the sake of the mission.  People came to meetings and answered the same list of questions each week, performed the same tasks for holy living each week and had their sharing and actions recorded to evaluate growth.  Many large churches today have programs with a strong mission of "disciple making" that is done in a very organized and institutional way.
The reason I point this out is to acknowledge that a strong mission can be supported by institutional means.  But the biblical mission, as I see it, is not only missional, it is missional in an organic way.  In other words, what matters is not just what we're doing, but how we're doing it.  It must also be stated that most instances of missional church that are carried out by institutional means that I find are alternative communities - meaning they are not mainstream.  I'll talk more about that in subsequent posts.      

The Church Transforming: Part 2

Last week I briefly defined two concepts of church, Mainline Institutional and Missional Organic.  Now, I want to explore further the value and necessity of each.  The scriptures themselves came into being through a combination of these two distinct kinds of community.  There were moments in Israel's history and in the history of the church where community was more organic, alternative, and radical in its way of thinking and way of life.  These were moments of great creativity, risk taking, and discovery theologically and they found voice mainly through rich narrative and story telling, mostly oral.  This is where stories like those in Genesis, Exodus, and the accounts of Jesus' ministry were originally shared before they were written down.   But at other moments, the biblical communities of faith became more organized, established, and grounded in belief and practice.  The life of faith became more orderly and disciplined and was expressed in carefully written versions of the oral traditions that gave them birth.  Our bible represents these oral traditions from an organic time of community being written down and organized by a institutional time of community.  So the question is not which type of community of faith is best - they are both necessary for the faith to remain fresh and relevant and for it to have consistency and longevity.  Rather, the question that needs to be answered is when and in what place are these types of communities most valuable and appropriate.  It should also be observed that the ebb and flow between more organic and more institutionalized communities of faith through the ages seems to happen because it has to - not because someone wants it do.  Like the protestant reformation, the Davidic Monarchy or the Methodist movement, each shift happens because the time is ripe for change, there is a powerful tide that demands a transformation.  I believe we may be in the beginnings of one of those tides in the life of the church today.  And our task is knowing whether we are to fight it, or join it.  

The Church Transforming: Part 1

Several months ago, I compared the institutional mainstream (IM) church to the Jews of Paul's missionary journeys in the book of Acts (Go to the Gentiles). I've been thinking more about the radical disconnect that exists between today's IM church and a truly missional organic church. First, let me define what I mean by those two categories. The IM church, is institutional because its structure and operation is based on a business-level organizational model. Hallmarks of the institutional church are that they depend on buildings, highly qualified staffs, procedures for assimilation, and program-based ministries. By mainstream, I am generally referring to a category of denominations that reached their climax of effectivity in the United States between the middle of the 19th to the middle of the 20th centuries. This includes Episcopalian, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist and United Methodist. Mainstream protestant churches are distinguished by their worship style (around an hour, once a week on Sunday Morning), their wide appeal theology, and their local church organizational structure. What I mean by the "missional organic" church is something entirely different. By missional I mean that the aim of this church effort is to fulfill a dynamic mission rather than to sustain and institutionalize a cultural practice. The participants in a missional movement are unified first and foremost not by affiliation (dogmatic, cultural, socio-economic) to an organization but by a common aim and cause. By "organic" I mean that the structure and support of the gathering grows and adapts to the dynamics of the mission. An organic church is more dependent upon inter-relationships than upon buildings, staff and programs. It relies on the flexible and strong bonds between its individual members to sustain its mission. Now, these definitions can certainly overlap. There are IM churches that depend heavily upon a mission and relationships and there or missional organic churches that may have some level of structural support. The question that I want to pursue is how the Missional organic church and the IM church can and should relate and interact. Can they coexist in active partnership? How do they support one another? What other historical examples do we see of similar relationships existing (i.e. The establishment of special orders of monks and nuns within the Easter and Roman churches, the Wesleyan Methodist movement and the Anglican church in 18th century England, the Base Ecclesial communities of Latin America and the Catholic church).