quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'd say my church group (that's the one in the Netherlands) is as non-institutional as they get. However, it doesn't try to 'help the widows and orphans' on its own, but rather adheres to oecumenical initiatives together with other churches.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Interesting, Le Roc. So what does happen in the services? What do they involve? What form/format do they take?

---

quote:

---

Albertus: With that understanding of institutions, I can't see how a church can avoid being at least minimally institutional- or why it should want to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Look up what an institution is. It is an agreed way of doing something by a group of people. Does it even make sense to talk about a non-institutional church?

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
With my politics academic hat on, I'd say that institutions aren't just formal hierarchies and constitutions; they can be standard operating procedures and customs and generally agreed ways of doing things that have some persistence over time and which affect the actions of those who participate in them. With that understanding of institutions, I can't see how a church can avoid being at least minimally institutional- or why it should want to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The interesting question to me is how the 'natural' inclination for Christian communities to become more and more complex can coexist with the current tendency for humans (especially in the West) to become less and less interested in religious 'institutions' altogether. Maybe the problem is that even the 'non-institutional' churches we've heard of are too institutional for most ordinary people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That's when I learned a group needs a leader - not a person the group revolves around who does all the work or hogs the spotlight or declares the official theology no one is allowed to disagree with or however one views the clergy-centric model, but someone with group-acknowledged authority to step up and tell someone else on behalf of the group's well-being "don't come back, this is not the group for you."

---

Yes, definitely. It's such a shame that this group didn't survive the introduction of your awkward friend. But I agree with you - no formal structure shouldn't mean no acknowledged leadership.
I think you should post more, by the way.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Well SCK, I just can't see such an effort having any continuity.

When used of an organization, the word 'inertia' has a derogatory feel to it. But frankly, inertia is profoundly helpful for ensuring that important stuff gets done.

Otherwise, how are we going to publish our bibles and writings of the church fathers? How are we going to conduct theological education, producing learned Christians? How are we going to produce our Christian art without an institution to teach us?

For crying out loud, how are we going to manage the calendar to establish when our feasts occur without astronomers?

Government requires an institution. Agriculture and mining require institutions. Air, land, and sea transportation require institutions.

Why should the Church be any different?
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
how are we going to publish our bibles and writings of the church fathers? How are we going to conduct theological education, producing learned Christians? How are we going to produce our Christian art without an institution to teach us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

---

[/QUOTE]

Yes, but this can only work if there are 'institutional' people elsewhere doing the background work - publishing the Bibles, organising the theology colleges etc.



If these things were wiped out overnight or didn't exist then the less institutional 'simple church' structures would have to develop them themselves - and in so doing would be become less simple and necessarily more complicated.

I don't see any way around this.

As for discerning what 'God is doing' in any particular community ... what does that actually mean in practical terms?

It all sounds terribly pious but what does it actually mean on the ground?

Our parish church has set up an allotment to help people from the Job Club to grow vegetables and develop new skills. For some of the longer term unemployed it helps build a structure and focus into their day.

Terrific. I applaud this initiative whole-heartedly.

But it takes a fair bit of organisation. It's got the support of professional careers advisors, the local council and so on ... but it still needs the church hall and office and other infrastructure and volunteers from church to make it work.

None of these initiatives 'just happen'. They take a lot of hard work.

I'd also suggest that the 'simpler' the church the harder the work in some ways.

Le Roc may be able to tell us whether that's the case or not, though.

My own impression of DIY and so-called simple churches is that they take so much of their members' nervous energy and commitment to maintain that they don't actually have a great deal of time or energy left to 'discern what God is doing' in their community and so end up not running initiatives like the allotment scheme I'm talking about.

All their effort goes into examining their spiritual navels and sounding pious whilst the nasty institutional church down the road is running a soup run or a credit union or something ...

Of course, a lot of 'new churches' do these things - and do them well - but only when they've reached a size and level of infrastructure to do so.

And, as SvitlanaV2 has reminded us, when churches are in decline they find it hard to do anything that isn't based purely on keeping the show on the road.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Urm No!

Theological Colleges such as Mansfield Oxford (no longer training ministers), New College London (now closed) and Northern College, Manchester* do not have their origins within denominational institutions. Indeed none are actually owned by any denomination. I think this is also true of most Baptist colleges. These are to this day separate institutions from the denominations.

I am pretty sure New College London started off as the boys Philip Dodderidge took on to supplement his ministerial salary in Northamptonshire. This was standard practice amongst Non-Conformist ministers at the time. Then some started specialising in this training, they then formed alliance to establish places where this training could happen and where people could teach at their own expertise.

This is also the origin of most of the red-brick universities. The vast majority of course have vanished without a trace. The important thing to realise that survival of a low institutional body often relies on its ability to create institutional forms that work within the current society.

Jengie

*Northern College Manchester full title is "Northern College Manchester URC and Congregations" and this non-denomination freedom means it also trains Moravians.

[ 26. July 2014, 10:08: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The point I'm making, Jengie, is that there needed to be institutional churches and mission-agencies etc etc for there to be these colleges in the first place.

Sure, a lot of them didn't have specific denominational foundations - but they would have drawn from a range of non-conformist denominations.

I wasn't up for a debate as to whether this, that or the other College was founded by Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists or whatever else.

In the same way, various evangelical (or formerly evangelical) publishing houses - were set up by Brethren and so on ... but later broadened out to publish works from a wider spectrum.

The point I'm making is that if 'simple' and minimally institutional churches such as SCK describes are going to function in the way he's outlined - drawing on the work of Christian charities, colleges and other institutions where necessary - then this presupposes that these institutions should exist in the first place.

None of these insititutions arose in a vacuum. They were all started by somebody or other. And those somebody or others would generally be operating out of some institutional context - be in pan-denominational (as with some of the missionary societies) or to represent particular groups and denominations.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Gamaliel: I'd also suggest that the 'simpler' the church the harder the work in some ways.

Le Roc may be able to tell us whether that's the case or not, though.

---

I'm not sure if I am. There are obviously people in our group who do a lot of work. But the same is true in a mainline church. Whether the work in our group is more or less, I cannot tell.

It's hard to answer your post without sounding defensive. I'm neither in a position, nor do I see the point of defending our church. But if you want to, I can try to address your concerns.

Whether we have a great deal of time or energy left to 'discern what God is doing', do you mean this in a spiritual sense or in a socially active sense? I'd say we spend a lot of energy on both.

I think if there is anything various Alt.worship or Emerging Church or whatever they are called have in common (we call ourselves 'Oecumenical Groups'), is that we see are spirituality as a journey, one that we walk with other people and one that is characterized by both contemplation and action. We spend a lot of time on that.

Whether we examine our spiritual navels and sound pious, who is to say?

We don't spend our time moaning about institutional churches. We don't consider ourselves better than them, we just do things differently. We have good contacts with most of these churches. A number of our members go to our services sometimes and sometimes to those of a more institutional church. We have no problem with that.

We don't run a soup kitchen, but we're very actively involved in oecumenical projects together with other churches in our city, among others to run a homeless shelter. Obviously, these projects are more institutionalized than we are.

We are not in decline. We're not overly obsessed with numbers, but we are growing.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Forgive me, Le Roc, I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. I'm genuinely interested.

I'm not out to attack or criticise your group, simply curious as to how it functions.

My rather cutting comments weren't aimed at you but, I'm afraid, more at South Coast Kevin. Not that I have any issue with him personally, it's more that I've never been convinced by the kind of rhetoric deployed by his particular grouping - The Vineyard - nor by some of the more charismatic evangelical attempts to set up 'simpler' and less institutional churches.

I'm not accusing your group of the same thing. For a kick-off, I don't know much about it and also the way you talk about it seems different to the kind of rhetoric I've heard from charismatic evangelicals and some emerging church people here in the UK.

I'm not against simple or informal structures per se. I'm sure there can be great value in that. Which is why I'm interested in your experience as someone who has first hand knowledge of an initiative of this kind.

Meanwhile, if I have caused any offence to South Coast Kevin, I apologise.

I would like him to expand on what he means by 'discerning what God is doing' and how that process works. I'm not dismissing that as a concept necessarily - it's simply that my experience of charismatic evangelical groups who go in for that sort of language is that they are often too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use.

I've given the instance before of a Pentecostal friend who is involved in a charity working across a major city. She is constantly amazed by how much commitment and support individual RCs give to this work - without any great big fuss or making a song-and-dance about it.

It's a Christian-based charity initiated by evangelicals but there are actually very few evangelicals actively involved. I can only conclude that this is largely because they're all tied up in house-groups and prayer meetings ...


 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point I'm making, Jengie, is that there needed to be institutional churches and mission-agencies etc etc for there to be these colleges in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that Le Roc's minimally institutional congregation is interesting.

However, until 'institutional Christianity' collapses under the rising tide of indifference and secularism ... I find it hard to see how such informal structures can function without relying on more formal structures elsewhere.

For instance, SCK overlooks the fact that the publishing houses and theology colleges only came about through the existence of historic, institutional churches.

---

Even if this is true (and Jengie Jon disputes it vigourously!), it doesn't mean that such institutions wouldn't have come about if there were no such thing as institutional / hierarchical churches. We can speculate, of course, but we'll never know how things would have panned out if that counter-factual were actually our reality and history.

And it's fine with me if the informal, looser churches do indeed rely on the institutional bodies for things like theological education, social action and so on. As I said upthread, I see that as two different kinds of organisation doing two different kinds of things.

LeRoc - your church sounds awesome. God bless you and your brethren - I'll drop you a note if I'm ever in visiting distance!

Gamaliel - you asked about my phrase 'discerning what God is doing'. I guess I was referring to the idea of missio Dei - the 'mission of God'. God is at work in the world, the idea goes, and the task of each local church community is to see what he's doing in our patch and get involved. It does sound overly pious, I realise...

I think it's really just an attempt to get away from the idea that we (both Christians individually and also churches) bring God into the world by our missionary and social service actions. God's already in the world drawing people to himself; our role is to get on board with that work. That's what I meant.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
FFS Jengie Jon, I knew that if I even mentioned non-conformity I'd get some kind of Spanish Inquistion ...



Ok. Forget the colleges - no, don't - take the Countess of Huntingdon setting up her College at Trevecca. To do so required means - she was an aristocrat and wealthy - and it also required a Connexion - 'Lady Huntingdon's Connexion'. Yes, it was open to those who weren't immediately part of that. But it still required a degree of institutional cohesion.

The missionary societies might be a better example.

The Baptists set their Mission Society up in 1792. That was a long time after the Baptists had been going as a movement. And there are plenty of reasons for that which we won't go into here.

The London Missionary Society (mostly Independent) was established in 1795. The Church Missionary Society was established in 1799. The Wesleyans were active in mission in the West Indies and elsewhere but didn't formally establish their missionary society until 1818.

The point is - whether it's a college, mission society, charity or whatever else it doesn't happen in a vacuum - there has to be some kind of institutional input.

Of course such institutions wouldn't have come about if there were no such thing as institutional Christianity.

The very fact that thee and me and anyone else is a Christian today is due to the existence of institutional Christianity of some form or other.

If I set up the Gamaliel Academy of Both/And and Non-Binary Approaches tomorrow it would be due to the existence of insitutional Christianity ...

Anyhow ...

Yes, that's better ... having said that, then I do think you've got a point that informal and simpler structures can exist alongside more institutional ones and do a different job.

But it's still both/and ... not either/or ...

LeRoc's church does sound interesting. I'm not sure I'd find it 'awesome' but then 'awesome' isn't a term I'd use lightly in the first place ...

On the Missio Dei thing. Yes, I'm with you on that one SCK.


 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Well SCK, I just can't see such an effort having any continuity.

When used of an organization, the word 'inertia' has a derogatory feel to it. But frankly, inertia is profoundly helpful for ensuring that important stuff gets done.

Otherwise, how are we going to publish our bibles and writings of the church fathers? How are we going to conduct theological education, producing learned Christians? How are we going to produce our Christian art without an institution to teach us?

For crying out loud, how are we going to manage the calendar to establish when our feasts occur without astronomers?

---

The funny thing is, we've now reached the stage where the structures have developed a life of their own. The art, the theology colleges and the publication of Bibles need involve only a handful of specialists and professionals; ordinary Christians on the ground are pretty irrelevant, and also, one feels, a bit of a nuisance to the 'system'!

The appeal of very simple, democratic church structures is that they give more of a place to these ordinary Christians. In order to remain this way, of course, they have to guard against the tendency towards ever-increasing institutionalisation, gentrification, bureaucratisation, etc.

As for the lack of continuity - that's potentially a good thing. It might prevent us from becoming too settled and self-satisfied, obsessed with church tradition. Death could be envisioned as a chance for rebirth and reinvention rather than something that's regrettable. I don't know what this would look like, but it's an idea.

The most powerful and global institutional structures are unlikely to vote themselves out of existence, unless it's forced on them. De-institutionalisation isn't really an issue for them; they can, if they want to, invest resources into developing new forms of church at a local level while maintaining their hierarchies and structures further up the ladder. But for the smaller groups (especially in countries like the UK) 'de-institutionalisation' should be put on the agenda, I think.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've heard Dr Andrew Walker, a sociologist and 'canon theologian' in the CofE as well as a Russian Orthodox lay-reader, say that theology shouldn't really be done in the university theological departments but should be done 'out in the churches'.

I agree with him, but this could only happen if:

- There's a will there for it to do so.

- There are resources available to help.

My impression of some DIY attempts at de-instituationalism is that there isn't particularly an appetite there for meaningful theological engagement - beyond finding theological justification for the way they do things.

Other than the insights Le Roc has given us, I'm still struggling to envisage what a less institutional approach would look like ... without it ossifying into an institutional one very quickly.

I'd say it took no more than around 5 years for the 'restorationist' churches to become institutionalised.

Whether that's good, bad or indifferent depends on where one stands.

I can see where South Coast Kevin is coming from but if I lived where he does and he invited me to join him and a few friends in some kind of informal gathering then I'd politely decline.

There are some interesting parallels from early Methodism in all this. The early societies were quite informal by 18th century standards - and in some places spanned a wide range of class and social backgrounds. But the whole thing was rather rigidly controlled by contemporary standards.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I fear that I am always the damp squib in such discussions. I like some degree of institutionalization as I think it helps provide limitations and sanctions on abusive behaviour by those in leadership positions. While this horrible situation happens everywhere and institutional churches have got their well-known problems, at least they provide some ways of dealing with this other than by lawsuits and walking out. Sometimes the Spirit lives in the process.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I tend that way too, these days.

Le Roc's experience doesn't sound likely to lead to abuse though. It does sound interesting.

Part of me quite likes the idea of a pot-luck system for deciding what's going on week by week but I'm sure that would soon pale with me.

I'm a lot happier going 'by the book' these days too. There's only so many 'Lord we really justs ...' and so-what? testimonies that a man can take in a single life-time ...


 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I should clarify that I was not speaking in any way to the situations outlined upthreadward! This was a more general comment.

Different situations address what we require at different times in our lives. I had several friends who in their teens and 20s were the engines of some really quite dramatically useful initiatives in parishes and religious groups. Now their considerable energies are largely consumed by families and by their daily work, often in the same areas (social work, refugee and immigrant adaptations, women's issues etc). What they need in a church setting is not so much working through issues and devising responses as it is to be a consumer of ecclesiastical services-- Xn education for children, worship, music, etc- which strengthen and support them in their lives.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Interesting, Le Roc. So what does happen in the services? What do they involve? What form/format do they take?

---

Any format we want. There's a notebook in the back of the church and if you put your name there, you're in charge of the next service. And you're pretty much free to do what you want. The only required element is Holy Supper, but even there you have some freedom in how you want to do it.

---

quote:

---

cliffdweller: Notebook = institutionalism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

cliffdweller: Notebook = institutionalism

---

Once again, I never claimed our church to be 100% non-institutional, nor that we want it to be.

---

quote:

---

cliffdweller: Yeah, that's why I described it as "low level and voluntary" institutionalism. Mine was a clarifying statement, not an argumentative one.

---

Okay, sorry. Yeah, low level and voluntary institutionalism is a good term.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Having been in a church structure which turned out to be the worst kind of authoritarianism, let me attempt to depict the current motley crew of which Mrs Eutychus and I have been recognised as "pastoral couple".

On a typical Sunday morning there are roughly 60-65 warm bodies. Our current premises could, at a squeeze, accommodate 100. If we threaten to grow any bigger I would favour another church plant. Anything larger would threaten to become an institution.

We rent these premises. In my experience acquisition of real estate attracts the worst kind of institutionalism and the real kind of Jezabel spirit (which is to be found in Kings and not in charismatic Hogwarts manuals) real fast.

French charity law pretty much requires us to be a registered association with the equivalent of an executive committee. We have a spiritual leadership team which overlaps with the executive committee. The administrative aspect of church life functions in theory as a democracy, but we aim for consensus and have achieved unanimity on several key decisions (eg moving into these premises with the corresponding hike in rent).

We are members of no denomination and don't even have a confession of faith. We do however have fellowship with a range of churches around town; I am a driving force in our local protestant pastors' fraternal and sit on the local ecumenical leaders' council.

Morning worship is led by an opt-in rota of any regular attender. Just about the only constant is that we celebrate communion every Sunday. This is organised in a range of idiosyncratic ways by whoever is leading and the elements are passed round by whoever the leader co-opts.

We are hoping to expand our leadership team in the autumn and get some people under 50 on it. To do this we will more or less repeat the process we used first time round, in which everyone puts a number of names into a hat and we hope and pray that some names that the current leadership feel they can live with stand out.

After about ten years of this, I can honestly say it works as well as any other type of church organisation I've tried.

How do we score?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Just what is this 'non-institutional reality' that God is looking for?

It's an oxymoron. We live in society. Societies are full of institutions.

Even if we met in a cardboard box on a Sunday we would still have some kind of 'institutional reality'.

I really don't understand this dualistic - and to my mind anti-Incarnational way of thinking. We live in families, some of us. A family is an institution in sociological terms. That doesn't make families 'wrong' or imply that they are somehow 'unreal' and phoney.

I get annoyed at times on some Orthodox discussion boards I visit when they accuse Protestants of being almost Gnostic. But I'm beginning to see why they think that. It's as if people think that something can only be 'real' and 'authentic' the less structure it has and the more amorphous it is and that this somehow shows God's approval.

Of course, any institutional structure brings its dangers - there have to be checks and balances.

But we can't function without institutional structures of some kind - however minimal we might want them to be.

This isn't anything to do with 'putting on a show' it's simply an acknowledgement of fact.

If people want minimum structure and institutionalism - fine, let them go ahead and function that way. Only don't pretend that there isn't any institutional structure there in the first place.

Le Roc's church sounds about as institutionally minimal as can be - but he's not denying that there are structures in place.

@Eutychus - the way you described how your church functions is pretty much as I'd envisaged it from your posts here over the years - only with flesh on the bones as it were.

I wouldn't be out to give you a 'score' of any kind. It's not for me to evaluate. The 'proof' of the pudding would be in the eating (and notice I didn't prefix pudding with 'over-egged' ...)



It depends on how you quantify 'success'.

I've met liberal clergy who turn the decline of their congregation into a positive virtue - 'Jesus didn't succeed in the world's eyes ...'

So they wouldn't see things shutting down as that much of a set-back. In fact, some of them might welcome it in some kind of inverted way.

That's no consolation for the likes of SvitlanaV2, though, who wants to make a go of things ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Actually I wouldn't mind closing eventually. One of the big lessons I took from my previous experience is that local churches are not indefinite - at least if the book of Revelation is anything to go by.

Besides, Roger Forster ("let's have as many denominations as possible!") has frequently suggested the contemporary church should apply the principle of jubilee and blow all the institutions up once every 50 years.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


Roger Forster ("let's have as many denominations as possible!") has frequently suggested the contemporary church should apply the principle of jubilee and blow all the institutions up once every 50 years.

---

quote:

---

Forster differed with [the Restorationist stream] on their anti-denominational stance, stating that the current multiplicity of church identities was not in itself, a key problem

---

which I suppose is a politer way of saying the same thing.

[ 26. July 2014, 20:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, some might argue that Roger blew up his own institution ...

Given SvitlanaV2's experience of declining churches and the effort taken to prolong the inevitable ... I do have some sympathy with what she's saying.

In the same way that, knowing the background to Eutychus's journey, I have a lot of sympathy with his.

But would I really be a grumpy old cynic if I were to say, 'Yes, sure, let's blow up all the institutions then SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin could start all over again from scratch. For sake of argument, I'll come down off the fence and join them.

Le Roc could provide some interesting insights from an institutionally-lite perspective.

Eutychus could provide additional insights from his.

But then, it'd be down to us.

So, South Coast Kevin could provide the venue. He knows a nice Fairtrade Coffee house we can use.

SvitlanaV2 can bring some study materials.

I'll order the coffee. Then I'llapply the Kool-Aid ...'


 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I really don't understand this dualistic - and to my mind anti-Incarnational way of thinking. We live in families, some of us. A family is an institution in sociological terms. That doesn't make families 'wrong' or imply that they are somehow 'unreal' and phoney.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That was what I felt was un-Incarnational.

What we want is 'life' within the institutional aspect (because an institutionless aspect is an impossiblity).

---

One could also respond to the question, "Can we have a non-institutional approach to church?" with "Why would we want to?"
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Gamaliel: But would I really be a grumpy old cynic if I were to say, 'Yes, sure, let's blow up all the institutions then SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin could start all over again from scratch. For sake of argument, I'll come down off the fence and join them.

Le Roc could provide some interesting insights from an institutionally-lite perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What we want is 'life' within the institutional aspect (because an institutionless aspect is an impossiblity).

---

It's not a binary thing though, is it. You of all people should acknowledge that!

There are many ways of doing / being church, some more institutional than others. I guess I'm using 'non-institutional' as shorthand for several connected concepts; like informal and unplanned meetings, no formal job titles or salaried positions, opportunity for everyone present to bring songs, prayers, Bible passages, art etc. etc. etc. that they feel God has given them to encourage and spiritually 'feed' one another...

All of that is in contrast to what I'd call the traditional institutional style of church; with a small groups of people leading songs, maybe a liturgical section where the congregation joins in with what a small group of people are leading, and then one person giving a talk of some description. And with paid staff, employment contracts, ownership of buildings, five year plans, and so on.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What we want is 'life' within the institutional aspect (because an institutionless aspect is an impossiblity).

---

It's not a binary thing though, is it. You of all people should acknowledge that!

There are many ways of doing / being church, some more institutional than others. I guess I'm using 'non-institutional' as shorthand for several connected concepts; like informal and unplanned meetings, no formal job titles or salaried positions, opportunity for everyone present to bring songs, prayers, Bible passages, art etc. etc. etc. that they feel God has given them to encourage and spiritually 'feed' one another...

All of that is in contrast to what I'd call the traditional institutional style of church; with a small groups of people leading songs, maybe a liturgical section where the congregation joins in with what a small group of people are leading, and then one person giving a talk of some description. And with paid staff, employment contracts, ownership of buildings, five year plans, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
You see those are only different forms of institution. If you have not realised your top one is very similar to a Quaker meeting. Indeed it probably goes further than you would be comfortable in that line.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: @Le Roc - I wasn't suggesting you wanted to blow things up and start again. Apologies if I implied as much.

---

I already thought as much. I couldn't resist

quote:

---

balaam: I think that the attitude of some on the thread that the less the institution the better the church is false reasoning.

---

quote:

---

by Gamaliel;

quote:

---

He (Steve Langton) said that God was looking for a 'non-institutional reality.'

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Seems to me the basic point here is that IF you are living in a settled political situation that allows it, you're very much going to have a significant degree of 'institution' for simple practical convenience. The issue is to make sure the institution serves the church's purposes rather than becomes the purpose (or too much so, anyway)

On the other hand, if you are in a situation of persecution....

The issue then would be whether you have enough of the non-institutional reality the church is really for so that you can carry on and be what God wants in the adverse circumstances. That in turn means that you need while not being persecuted to make sure you are building the church up in the real essentials; i.e., that you have the institutions which help you do that and don't obstruct it.

---

---

• on time to attend services and to work to keep the church running and to run any provision that church is involved in;
• on money to keep the buildings upright and running, to pay for the priest and other things (and the Church of England does this through Parish Share and has to raise the money to maintain the historic buildings);
• on money or goods to the good causes the church organises and/or supports;
• to be involved in regular prayer life and develop faith;
• the necessity to juggle church involvement with all the other options possible on Sunday mornings, including a lot of children's sporting activities.
• the demands of other family members who are not church-goers

I'm sure I can find more if I think about it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You are reading the wrong accounts, Steve.

The Wesleyans exaggerated the state of the CofE before the Awakening in order to make their own achievements look more impressive.

The situation was certainly mixed but it wasn't as black as has been painted.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In evangelical terms, of course, CK, people are expected to have to had a conscious conversion experience to qualify as 'real' rather than nominal Christians.

So unless someone can point to a particular date and time when they consciously 'accepted Christ' then many evangelicals would doubt whether they were truly Christians.

Of course, these days that's been modified somewhat and most evangelicals are happy to accept people from outside the evangelical constituency as fellow believers if they show some kind of commitment to their faith ...

That's the kind of paradigm Steve Langton is operating within, although I'm sure he wouldn't take as 'formulaic' an approach to this as some evangelicals would.

The history of evangelical conversion is quite an interesting one. On one level you can say that it 'developed' (I won't say was 'invented') as a concept around the second or third generation after the Reformation.

The first generation of Reformers tended to see conversion in terms of a shift from 'Romanist' views to more Protestant ones - justification by faith etc - but they didn't go looking for particular 'evidence' or 'symptoms'.

In the later 16th and early 17th centuries, particularly among the Independents and Congregationalists (here and more so in the Colonies in North America), Reformed theology was taken as read. So people began to look for 'signs' of conscious acceptance/change - particularly among children and young people.

Hence, the practice began among Puritans and those of a similar bent - to 'preach for conversion.'

It's been shown that 'methods' were introduced in New England and elsewhere - even among the most fiercely Calvinistic - that were calculated to draw some kind of conscious response.

Combined with pietist influences from continental Europe, these developments led to what we'd now see as evangelical conversion in its classic form.

That's not to say that 'conversion' as such hadn't existed before that point, simply that it came to be expected as the defining and distinguishing feature by which to recognise those who had been 'awakened' and 'born-again' in the evangelical understanding of the phrase.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You could say that the conversion process gradually became 'institutionalised' in those churches which prized the idea of a 'gathered' community of what they considered true - rather than nominal - believers.



'Born again conversions and experiences as an institutionalised process: Discuss.'

I hasten to add that I don't say this to deny the reality of these experiences or conversions. I'm simply acknowledging that they can be 'built into' a group's expectations by a process of development and expectation.

However we cut it, people are generally 'socialised' into the Kingdom.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Curiosity Killed;

quote:

---

Nowadays, why should any nominal believers bother to be part of a church? Societal pressures have disappeared to be non-existent to push anyone into church,

---

quote:

---

The Wesleyans exaggerated the state of the CofE before the Awakening in order to make their own achievements look more impressive.

The situation was certainly mixed but it wasn't as black as has been painted.

---

Certainly not as black in terms of the CofE as a whole; and yes I was aware of the exaggeration - but my memory is that there are non-Wesleyan accounts which seem to suggest many local congregations where things were that black. Also a 'Christian country' almost inevitably results in churches with a considerable 'nominal' membership.

And my original comment did include the word 'potentially'. I was making the point that the worldly 'institution' could in theory exist in absence of the really important aspects of Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I don't think you can have a church with any kind of legacy that doesn't also have some degree of nominalism. Churches with zero nominalism tend to fizzle out eventually - they're built on enthusiasm and fervour rather than community. Community is what binds church members together. Sometimes the community aspect overtakes the faith aspect, which is how you get Jesus-tinged social clubs with a lot of nominalism, but equally a church built on faith alone with no community won't last. Particularly now when people move around a lot, can 'do' church online, and generally have more reasons to not become part of a local church.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I didn't realize some people think the word "non-institutional" means "not the slightest hint of anything planned."

Nothing human is that. Even a person who lives alone make some plans for providing meals for themself. So on that definition of course there is no non-institutional church, or non-institutional birthday party, or non-institutional breakfast at home.

That absolutism is not what most people mean when they refer to a church or any other activity as institutional or not institutional.

It's about the level of control over what people are allowed to do or contribute, and that's about whether individuals and their desires and giftings are celebrated, vs shunned in favor of the institutions' self interest.

In various discussions over the years some people come across to me as saying because any human group has some structure, that means we all should love the highly structured highly institutionalized churches. By that logic we would all love living in the army, it's highly institutionalized life-style 7 days a week. Some like it some don't. Neither is *universally* right or wrong.

(I once read a textbook in which the author so admired military orderliness he ended with a statement that all houses should be exactly alike with the same gardens in front so neighborhoods would be nice and orderly to look at. I was horrified by his "universal good".)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think it's as binary as that, Belle Ringer.

Also, what appear to be highly institutionalised churches are often pretty disorganised. There's been a long running joke about people converting to Orthodoxy because they are fed up with 'organised religion' ...

On the nominalism thing, I don't think it's as simple as blaming State or Established Churches or the notion of a 'Christian country' for nominalism.

Nominalism happens in any context where a particular faith tradition attains some kind of critical mass.

As I've said, I've heard this from evangelicals both from the US Deep South and from Nigeria - neither of which are dominated by any 'State Church' as such but where there are more churches and denominations than you can shake a stick at and then some.

On 18th century England - yes, things were 'black' in certain places - pluralism among the clergy, drunken vicars etc etc - and generally Wesleyanism flourished where the CofE was weakest - it filled a void.

But it's also true that the Evangelical Awakening quickened some of the Dissenting groups which had settled into a kind of gloomy and moribund hyper-Calvinism.

They weren't part of the Establishment and they suffered from nominalism and inertia too.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;

quote:

---

They weren't part of the Establishment and they suffered from nominalism and inertia too.

---

quote:

---

Nominalism happens in any context where a particular faith tradition attains some kind of critical mass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There were measures in place - at an institutional level - to ensure that youngsters in particular had opportunities to be converted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Troeltsch's typology of church and sect would suggest that all revivalist and conversionist groups inevitably suffer "routinisation" in the second and third generations. Sometimes it is possible for a charismatic leader to turn back the clock, at most times it isn't and "new" groups appear with the stated aim of "restoring our roots"(eg the Primitive Methodists). But they are almost certainly doomed to a similar fate.

---

And this is absolutely fine as long as we don't become overly attached to our denominations and institutional structures, and instead welcome the shake-up that charismatic, Spirit-filled leaders often bring.

New wine needs new wine-skins. I know this is a standard trope of restorationist-type groups, but what I think such groups perhaps miss is that exactly the same thing will probably need to happen to them as they want to do to the established (small 'e'), set-in-their-ways churches of their time.

I'm part of a Vineyard church. I fully expect that, unless our movement significantly reinvents itself at some point, people from Vineyard churches will split off to start something new and (in their eyes) fresh, in order to be the wine-skin required to hold the new wine of what the Lord is doing. (Not that I have some specific fault / weakness of the Vineyard in mind; just that ISTM this is how movements work.)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes - I'd go along with that Baptist Trainfan.

I'd also recognise that a 'Constantinian' process would up the ante in terms of the rate of nominalism, but would also maintain that this happens whether there's a Constantinianising process or not (to mangle the English language somewhat) ...

Hence, you've got people heading for the desert in 3rd century Egypt to escape growing 'nominalism' in the cities and find a more 'authentic' way of expressing their faith by living in caves and holes in the ground ...

So the quest for perfectionism has a long pedigree.

There's a balance somewhere. It's like the (apocryphal?) story of the New England minister who kept upping the ante on requirements for church membership in terms of pietistic rigour until his once large congregation had shrunk to 2 old ladies and himself ...


 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;

quote:

---

It's not as simple as Constantinianism vs pristine 'purity'.

It never has been.

---

quote:

---

These are all institutional means to achieve particular ends.

---

Yes - but so what? As far as I can see we all accept that churches will have some institutional element, and we all accept that such elements must serve the church and its purposes and not become an end in themselves. It's a non-argument....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, cross-posted with South Coast Kevin.

Yes, that's a standard restoration trope and one I'd have trotted out blithely for quite some years ...

Mind you, back in the day I often wondered why we left out the rest of the verse, 'but the old wine is the best ...'



Also, I'm comfortable with the idea of 'charismatic, Spirit-filled leaders' as it raises notions of a two-tier spiritual elite and suggests the following verbal declension:

- Our leaders are charismatic and Spirit-filled.
- Your leaders are institutionalised, non-Spirit-filled and nominal.

Or

- Our church is following the lead of the Spirit and following what God is doing.
- Yours isn't.

I know these things work both ways and judgementalism goes in both directions ... but I find it hard to escape an uneasy sense of spiritual superiority lurking behind some of these claims.

The same thing happens in reverse, of course, with more institutional churches accusing some of the newer groups of shallowness and froth.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Whoops, I meant 'uncomfortable' with the notion of charismatic, Spirit-filled leaders ...

In my experience that can put leaders on more of a pedestal than they are in the more institutional churches.

I can see what you're getting at but wish we could find some terminology that expresses it without implying 'lack' or 'second-class' Christianity for those who aren't deemed to be so charismatic or 'Spirit-filled' in the contemporary charismatic sense of the term.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoops, I meant 'uncomfortable' with the notion of charismatic, Spirit-filled leaders ...

---

Glad you wrote that, I was going to query what you said above ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not arguing about Constantinianism, Steve Langton. All I'm saying is that 'nominalism' as an issue can happen outwith Constantinianism.

Hence my example from the early Puritans and also from pre-Constantinian Christianity in Egypt.

I am not debating whether Constantinianism is good, bad or indifferent.

Simply pointing out that you can have some of these issues in a pre-Constantinian or non-Constantinian setting.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Can we have a moratorium on the C-word, please?

I'm losing the will to live ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
More seriously, perhaps this thread should have been entitled:

'To what extent can we have a less institutionalised form of church?'

Only South Coast Kevin appears to entertain the possibility that a completely non-institutionalised form of church is possible.

I certainly believe - as per Le Roc's example - that we can have institutionally-lite forms of church.

But I would maintain that these depend to a certain extent to more institutional structures elsewhere. And that if these more institutional structures were to disappear then the less-institutional churches would develop their own and so become more institutional ...

Would that be a fair assessment?
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Also, I'm [un]comfortable with the idea of 'charismatic, Spirit-filled leaders' as it raises notions of a two-tier spiritual elite...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I would maintain that these [less institutional forms of church] depend to a certain extent to more institutional structures elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And that if these more institutional structures were to disappear then the less-institutional churches would develop their own and so become more institutional ...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0