Is the Institution Bad?
Jan.07, 2009 in
Podcast Episodes
In response to the last episode (“Leaving the Institution“), Scott Roche asked if there was any basis for the institutional church at all (at least in the opinion of Ray and Steve). Always enjoying responding to listeners, Ray and Steve devote this entire episode to giving their thoughts in response to Scott’s excellent questions. The usual disclaimers apply, but Ray and Steve attempt to explain why they think the institution might serve some good purposes, but is not a “one-size-fits-all” setup for all believers.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 39:39 — 27.2MB) | Embed
January 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
So when do you make your own cult? I was always taught ( by southern baptists) that all cults started with “ideas that make sense” but they always want to “pull you away from church!” BEWARE!!!!!!! (music – duhn duhn duhnnnnnn!) The problem most people would have with you – If they had one – is you think for your self too much and you make sense. Another amazing topic covered.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Hello Raborn (and Steve),
I found your podcast (and subsequently this blogsite) through our friend Chip. So good to hear your voice, even if only through cyberspace. I remember our times at Cornerstone (and even before at Rydell’s) with much fondness.
I’ve been thinking on some of these things for awhile now, not necessarily through revelation of Scripture, but through frustration of going through the motions and sensing that there’s more to fellowship than what we experience. Learning to live in community with one another seems to be where this is leading, which may or may not include the institutional church as part of the journey. For me, when we have one of our friends from the IC over to play cards and eat and hang out, THAT is more satisfying than any Sunday morning experience I’ve had in a LONG time. But I wouldn’t have known her without the IC. So I’m learning what it means to be free from the IC while still being an active member (I run sound and occasionally play on the worship team) in order to know those who attend. Does that make any sense? Like you, I’m still trying to figure this life of faith out.
“Oh, but this becoming is such hard work.”
So how do the “gifts to the church” mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 (the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers) figure into a model of de-institutionalized, organic church life?
January 8th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
When it comes to not “graduating” I see what you’re saying. There are a lot of people that stay stuck, but would leaving the church change that?
I think that you guys are talking about bad institutional churches more so than about why the institution is bad.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I think if you separate the American church as corporation from the American church as spiritual “institution,” I think you’ll find the flavor of your analysis will change a little.
Corporations are in the business of growth and self-perpetuation. Jesus, by contrast, was about planned obsolescence and self-replication.
Even at that, the institutional church must provide intensive discipleship — of the sort experienced by the Apostles and those whom they mentored. You can’t learn to be mechanic, for instance, by half-paying attention to a forty-minute talk every other week for twenty years.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Hey guys.. I left some notes/reactions over on Scott’s Facebook page if you are interested.. hope I didn’t comes across too strange.. be easy on me.. and remember that I was just responding live to your podcast. Gotta go right now.
Blessings, Bob
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Gentlemen,
I have a question. It may seem a bit pointed because I do believe it CAN apply to those that leave the church. Their reasons may or may not matter, but the scripture is (as I understand it), something that deals with the issue of leaving the institutional church. The verse is Jude 19:
These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
Jude 19
Now, I only put down the verse itself, but I think it is important to look at the entire passage.
I want to make it clear that I’m not laying a direct charge at your feet. This is an extremely serious issue and involves many factors – most of which require spiritual discernment on an individual level. So while I view this as a GENERAL concern in many situations (those that leave the institutional church being one of them), this isn’t intended to be a charge – rather something that is important to consider.
I also want to anticipate a response. One that says “separation” need not mean leaving an institutional church. I agree. But at the same time, leaving the institutional church is necessarily a form of separation. And BECAUSE the visible church does not necessarily equal the actual Church of Jesus Christ (not the Mormons!), it is important to recognize these things BOTH in people in the “institution” and outside of it. For that reason, I don’t see the response that the denominational church system is not the be all and end all of faith is a sufficient response. I raise that because I’ve heard it before.
Again, I think the whole book needs to be read to fully grasp what Jude is after. And just as the spirit can often encompass more than the letter does, so is it that I think the picture painted needs to be looked at from a spiritual standpoint so that one is clear of this sort of charge (again, I speak generally).
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Some good comments here. Sorry we didn’t respond here in the comments section, although we have talked about some of these issues in followup podcasts.
“William Tyndale”, allow me to address your comment specifically, as it seems to be the culmination of the other responses here.
You have already tried to anticipate my response, and in doing so, have built a bit of a straw man out of it. So I’d like to give you my answer, but ask that you give the benefit of the doubt in listening to the response without the baggage you have already put on the answer 🙂
You are correct that my initial response would be that separating from the institutional church need not be defined as “separation”, especially as it relates to the potential charge that you have asked about. And here’s why (I will only speak for myself and not Raborn here, although I have a hunch he would agree with me): I have not separated from people. I have separated from a system. I have separated from traditional practices that do not have their foundation in scripture. I have separated from a structure of hierarchy that I believe runs counter to the instructions of Jesus.
Leaving the institution is not, as you stated, “necessarily a form of separation”. At least not in any sense in which scripture talks about separation. Leaving the institution under the conviction (as I have) that the institution actually hinders growth in a Christian and serves as a poor substitute for actually “making disciples” does not mean that one has separated from anyone. It simply means that one is pursuing relationships with people (perhaps even those same people that are in the institution) that are based on fellowship of the Spirit and not merely membership within the institution.
The commands and instructions in scripture as relate to separation are not in the context of any institutional expression, but rather talk about relationships. Likewise, the instructions given us as to how we are to relate to one another are about relationships, not structures or institutions.
Per your instructions, I read through the entire book of Jude before posting this comment, and I have to say that I’m curious how you even see the potential for any of those negative statements as applying to me or Ray, based on what you have heard. Jude talks about people who are self-centered, causing division, mocking, following ungodly lusts, worldly-minded — is that what comes across to you in our podcasts, brother?
I don’t answer this way in anger. I’m just really curious what part of Jude (19 or otherwise) you think would apply to us. If we were having this conversation over coffee, I would simply ask these questions calmly (or at worst, with a bit of a baffled, confused tone and expression). I realize you said you weren’t charging us with this, yet you feel it sufficiently concerning to raise the question.
Bottom line, you are correct that these issues can exist both within and without the institution (I think the institution especially has the “causing divisions” part down pretty good!). And you are correct that we should be careful to be clear of such charges.
However, I do not, in any sense, understand how you read the institutional church back into the book of Jude when nothing of the sort is mentioned. Would you care to clarify that at all?
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Steve,
Briefly, separation from the institutional church implies separation from all those that are within its boundaries that are also a part of the invisible church. But for some who make the visible (i.e. institutional) and invisible church mutually exclusive, their separation from the visible church is NECESSARY (in their own minds). In so doing, they throw out the baby with the bath water. In raising the visible church to a stature equivalent to the invisible church – and then finding they are not – they then do the opposite and cast it into the trash can. They, then, by separating from those who are a part of the TRUE body of Christ, are at the very least at risk of being those that are sensual (literally looking at the natural instead of the spiritual) and become murmurers and complainers (castigating everyone in the institutional church in one breath – true believers and others alike). They can even start mocking the institutional church (and the invisible church at the same time, by extension).
So those that creep in unawares can lead people away from the church FOR THE REASON THAT THEY REDUCE THE ENTIRE INSITUTION TO A PLACE OF WORTHLESSNESS AND UTTER DEPRAVITY. At the risk of being too repetitious, they fail to discern between what is the TRUE body of Christ (“invisible church”) and the visible, nominal, professing church (which necessarily is composed of sheep and goats).
I hope that clarifies my thought somewhat.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Sorry…I ended too quickly.
I don’t hear that in your podcasts. At least with the disclaimer I also recognize that we are simply seeing things through your eyes and as such recognize that you haven’t (at least not obviously) cast those in the institutional church all the same way.
But I am certainly interested in what you have to say on the matter.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
WT, I have to say that I disagree with your basic premise. You said that “separation from the institutional church implies separation from all those that are within its boundaries that are also a part of the invisible church.” This is exactly what I was attempting to dismantle in my earlier comment, however.
I have not separated from people. I have separated myself from an institution. A corporation, if you will. I do not have my membership in a corporation. I have not signed a commitment to be part of a corporation. It is that corporation and its structures of which I speak negatively.
The “visible” church (and let us be honest and realize that the scripture does not talk about “visible” and “invisible” churches) is not the institution. In fact, part of my problem is that the institutional church claims to be the visible church.
Rather, the visible church is comprised of those who profess Christ. To think that this only exists within the walls of the institution is to elevate the institution to something it is never capable of being.
The institution has done a terrific job of redefining words (such as “church”) and concepts so as to severely muddy the waters in any discussion such as this.
I will assert once more – I have not separated from anyone. I have chosen not to participate in a system that calls itself the church when its leaders fail to discern that the church is the body of Christ, not members of a corporate organization.
In my fellowship opportunities, I have not discriminated against anyone who still participates within an institution. It matters not to me if they feel called to stay in that institution. My fellowship with any believer is on the basis of the fellowship of the Spirit alone. I have had deep relational fellowship with people who are involved in the institution (even pastors in that institution) that is no different than the fellowship with those who do not participate in an institutional organization.
I’m not sure what your denominational heritage might be, but if you want to talk about separation, are you prepared to level the same charges against the entire body of Protestant denominations (including non-denominational institutions)? Your definitions here would play very well in a discussion by Roman Catholic leaders! The RCC even has referred to Protestants as “separated brethren” at times in the past.
Martin Luther separated himself from the RCC in his day and had very strong statements to make against it. Yet now, to separate from his heritage (Protestantism) is to suddenly be separating in the sense of your reading of Jude 19? (By the way, “separate” is not the only possible definition of the word in Jude 19. The NASB has chosen to translate it as “causing division” – a different concept. Unfortunately, the Greek word used only appears in this one place in the New Testament, so there isn’t any other context within the NT in which to determine the best translation. I personally think that the context of the entire chapter/book of Jude indicates that “causing division” is a better translation. Why would ones “creep in” only to “leave”?)
Perhaps it is necessary for you to define “separation” since you have stated that separation from the institution is separation from the invisible church (or at least a portion of it). I think that we must be operating off of different definitions.
I appreciate the interaction, brother, but I think you are exaggerating and over-sensationalizing the “separation” of which you seem to be speaking. In so doing, you imply some pretty strong allegations against those of us who are not involved in the institutional organization. In fact, I’m not even sure that you’re letting me off the hook on those charges. The way you describe it, I’m not sure how I would be considered an exception to your statements.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Let me try a different angle since there is obviously a disconnect. Your response is a little confusing to me since at one place I don’t see the disagreement and then another place there is something else going on. If this question doesn’t raise the issue I’m trying to get at then either I’m doing a lousy job of explaining (entirely possible!) or there is something implicit going on that is causing a reaction. Or we have different presuppositions…
Assume for the moment that there are 2 types of people who come out of the institutional church (as far as I can tell, the visible church is all those that say “Lord, Lord” and the invisible church is all that are actually His). Those 2 types are those that come out because they reject the visible church wholesale and those that come out because they reject much of what the visible church stands for. Those that come out because they reject the church wholesale – who proceed to trash it entirely, scoff at it, have the same negative things to say about one and all within its borders and put all those in that church in the same category (i.e. bad) – they have the same spirit of those that cause division. They are different from those that no longer attend the institutional church (I’m not clear how far this is defined – e.g. are non-denoms in the institutional church? Or those that attend some church but do not pledge membership?). Assuming those that are in this category no longer attend any sort of formal gathering at all, this individual finds himself (and possibly those immediately around him) either disenfranchised or simply stunted. He feels the Lord is leading him in a direction different from that of those in the institutional church. He cannot proceed in that direction and remain a member of any church.
As far as I can tell, you are solidly in that second category. There is an earnest longing for those in the institution to experience what you are experiencing outside of the institution – unfettered by the limitations that you see as unscriptural.
So far I am not making a judgment one way or another (that I can tell) as to whether or not the second person is necessarily doing the right thing. But I hope you can see that the first person is not the same thing as the second person – yet they can both be found (ironically) in the same camp – those not in an institutional church. And, according to the second person, while the institution may not be what Christ directly instituted, there is (undeniably) Christian fellowship taking place within its borders. As well as unChristian fellowship. And by the definition of Jude (at least as far as I can see), there is the same potential for Christian as unChristian fellowship OUTSIDE as INSIDE. I suppose it could be disputed that there is “as much” potential, but in general, the idea is that the definition of separation is not limited to (or by) the institution. The person who adamantly leaves the institution is not necessarily any better than the one who adamantly remains and supports the institution.
So from the viewpoint of separation, one way or the other does not make someone immune from that spirit.
If this doesn’t make anything clearer, then I will go back and look closer at the exchange. For now, I have to post and run.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am
This last comment made a whole lot more sense to me. I see the point you were trying to make.
Having said that, I am a big fan of giving people the benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure of what value it is to label groups of people as Jude 19 types of people, nor to try to figure out a person’s motives in leaving the institution.
But that’s just my perspective 🙂