Monday, November 22, 2004
What structure have we?
Today is a bit hectic, as we prepare to leave for Dallas in the morning, have discussion group tonight, and I'm trying to finish writing and recording at least 5 songs/beats to sell when we get back. I had to take a break from the monotony, and take the time to blog some thoughts that have been brewing for the past week.
Tony Jones, over at Theoblogy, has been writing a series of five posts about Church authority, called "Without Authority" (though somehow, number four was lost in the shuffle). The third particularly caught my interest, called A Taxonomy of Institutions
To highlight a bit:
Protestant denominations also multiplied like bunnies during the Modern Epoch. Some of this, of course, was good -- it allowed for theological diversity in the shadow of the monolithic and theologically stultifying Roman Catholic Church. But, let's be honest, it got a little out of control -- someone should have neutered the rabbit after it had a few dozen (instead of a few hundred) children.
He goes on to talk about how Church institutions have mirrored the culture's organizational structures around them.
The rise of Evangelicalism in the final quarter of the 20th century saw an even more insidious marriage of church and culture. Evangelical leaders in the U.S. overtly copied corporate marketing strategies for their churches, parachurch organizations, and denominations/associations. Books, conferences, and websites touted strategies by which a church could grow and grow -- growth suddenly becoming the measure of gospel success. 'Nuff said on that account, right?
This is true. In some cases, it is an understatement. Perhaps many have traded in community for business corporations, at least in structure. I often wonder if instead of formulas for getting more people to Church buildings, what would happen if we had books, conferences, classes, and the like that taught psychology, healthy social skills, humanities, ethics, creativity, and personal as well as interpersonal development? It would seem that "ministry" has become something that is done to people instead of for them. Somewhere along the way, focus shifted from genuinly loving and knowing people to herding them.
All that to say, organizations started for the best of intentions reify and homogenize over time(called "Institutional Isomorphism" by sociologists). My contention is that the organizations by which we connect churches have done just that; and, in fact, most of our churches have done that, too.
So, what do I propose that emerging churches do differently so as not to fall into these traps?...
In his other posts, he speaks of "authority from below", a type of servant leadership, in which the entire group acts as a single unit, "...through a process of dialogue and discussion, in which we process together the decisions that need to be made, present suggestions, give reasons for our suggestions, and critique the reasons that we give." This is an excellent model, as it gives to being a living organism as opposed to an organization. I would go one step further to add that each member of the group has certain giftings that they bring to the circle. In this, roles begin to take shape. Leadership becomes one role among many in the circle that are recognized by the group as a whole. Each gift/role plays an important part to keep the circle whole. I would contend that this is the natural maturing of a circle of people, giving to synergy, and is still "neither hierarchical nor individualistic."
This brings some of my older posts to mind, such as the four part series on the structure of our group, The Inner Sanctum, which are all linked to here.
