Sky Jethani writes here and here about the distinction between the church as a community and the church as an institution. It is an important distinction as increasingly the institutional nature of the church is being rejected in favor of a wide variety of notions about community.
The modern church is a product of the same cultural forces that created the modern corporation. Americans have mastered the processes of organization so that virtually anything can be successfully produced and marketed, including religion.
What happened on the way to the creation of the modern organization was a loss of human connection within those organizational structures. We could say then that the organization lost its soul. This is the situation that people who reject the institution of the church are claiming as their reasons for embracing community.
The reality is that every community if it is to develop sustainable vitality must develop some organizational structure. This is precisely the same thing as the institutionalization of organizations.
The solution? Actually it is fairly simple. It goes to the character of the individual who is willing to invest themselves in making the church more than a hang out, more than a social gathering point. At the heart of the character issue is the question of individual purpose or call. When that call is tied to a community's purpose beyond their own aggrandizement, it ultimately means that organization will result. It is how we achieve the things we want.
What I'm saying is that the issue of community versus institution is the wrong one. The deeper issue is the character of a person's relationship to Christ in terms of their call to ministry and service. When people gather together who share a common sense of call, organization develops that enables them to grow deeper in their friendships as well as in the impact of the life of their community. The problem with institutionalism is that it lost the soul of personal call, and became a place of personal convenience. It salvation is to rediscover Christ's mission for the body and for those who are members of it.
Our new Moderator of Christian Education called a meeting for last night. His main push was that we figure out how to be "relevant" to those not here.
I think that sounds like trying to be attractional, rather than missional - so I need to check with the source to see which direction he's trying to take us.
Trying to be relevant in Sunday School, in order to get more to attend? Yes, I suppose a new adult class could be begun which addresses a felt need. Overall though, attendance is up this year. The adult class has 7-8 on average, the 1-5th grade has 4-5 on average (after thinking there were only 4 that age, and then one moved away), and the age groups above and below the elemtary age have 2-3 on average. That's 17 (22 counting teachers) of our average attendance of 54. This is the first year in probably 20 years that we have the potential to send kids to camp (maybe even a handful of 3rd & 4th graders).
Be relevant? Sure, make sure we are making a difference in the lives of those who attend, and in the lives of others through those gathered. Be missional - not attractional.
I think it's coming to a head though. There are quite a few who want more contemporary music, complete with a worship set of 12-15 minutes (instead of an opening hymn). That's going to offend some who have been here for 30 years or more (the majority). I'm okay with either one. The thing is, it seems we are being pushed to define who we are in worship - instead of who God is.
It's about who we are, and how we want to sing? When we join in the celestial choir, do we dictate the instruments and speed and words? Sheesh. And yet, it does seem to be a very serious thing right now.
Posted by: DennisS | March 19, 2008 at 11:36 AM