The Institution of the Church

Hi there,
Long time no see.

Well, not you Jessika. I talked to you just now, and we had/are having a lovely discussion about this topic. We didn't quite agree on all of it, but we did agree on a few things, including the fact the jumping to conclusions from a small bit of evidence is a bad idea. If you see me doing it, call me on it.

Institution, according to Google, means a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose. The key here is organization, however there is a difference between being organized and being an organization. The difference between them can be found in where the focus is: in the institution (organization), the focus is on the institution itself, how it can be perpetuated and built up. Conversely, in a organized-non-institution, the focus is on the individuals comprising the group. You might say this seems like a petty difference, that has no effect on the people, but it makes an essential change in the attitudes of the people.

In an institution, an individual is either pitted against the powers in the institution, or they are one of them. If you are a member but not a decision-maker, you are constantly being pulled on to give to the institution, and you are constantly pulling back, trying to get what you want. The opposite of this would be a relationship based group. Want an example? Here:

You have been meeting regularly with your group of ten friends to go hiking every Saturday. You tend to bring a snack large enough for the whole group (you love to mix stuff up, and sometimes people even chip in to help pay for the ingredients) and Tim likes to choose the routes, since he grew up in the area and loves the scenery. Once, on the trail, Peter sprains his ankle, but since Liz know first aid she takes over and gets him fixed up to get home. Some weeks a few of you are sick or busy so the group decides not to go.

As opposed to:

On Saturdays, you meet with your hiking club. You are the snacks official, Tim is the president, and Liz is the medical officer. Tim chooses all the routes, yet he is usually open to suggestions. You have to talk with John, the secretary and treasurer, to get funds for the snacks every year, and the club sometimes has to cancel it's trip if  Liz is unavailable to oversee the safety of the group.

In the first example, you are involved in a relationship-based group, in the second you are in an institutionally based group.  They share some similarities: most people do exactly the same thing, but the jobs have a title in the second version; you are doing the same activities, with the same people. Some unfortunate differences do exist: there is now a power structure. It Tim acts selfishly, or is demanding, he is in power and so he has to be put up with. If you decide you want to bring snacks that some of the members are allergic to, they have to bring their own or go hungry. Would these things potentially happen even in a relationship based group? Maybe. But in the relationship based group, would you feel like a victim if Tom was a brat? No, he can go off an be a brat if he wants. The power structure adds an unnecessary element of struggle and tension, depriving people instead of building them up.

A church is not a hiking group though. Is this struggle still present in a group of Christians? Well, they are still people, and the hallmarks of an institution- the powerful positions of the hierarchy, inequality between the laymen and those in power, and the stuggle that an individual has to go through to get anything from the institution - they are all there. If you want a more specific example:

•  the pastors and elders are in powerful positions (they can kick people out of the church, they get to decide what the church believes, they get to teach). 
• There is inequality; can your father speak from the pulpit on Sunday? What about the old man in that other pew?  They are not in the hierarchy, and so even though they may have a good thing to say, they would never dream of getting up and saying it. 
• The pull against the institution: what does it take to get monetary help? What about food? What about comfort and counsel? The institution is busy, and you must schedule, fill out forms, wait in line, and not trouble them too much.

This is not necessarily a universally true representation in all points, but in most churches you will find at least one or two of these effects.

This is contrast with everything the Bible teaches about Christianity, and meeting with other believers. We are told that love is our defining quality, yet there is no love in an institution. The Biblical talk about "Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing." is directly contradicted by an organization that tells us to sit still and be quiet and listen to the pastor. The purpose of our meetings is to encourage EACHOTHER, not have a pastor encourage your neighbor. The hierarchy is unhelpful (except to those in power), and unbiblical. Did they have the teachers and elders? Yes, but they were to be servants to the church, not bloated aristocrats to be supported for teaching once a week. 

So, what can we do? I propose that we should do what the first Christians did. Imitating them: eating together, meeting together, supporting eachother, encouraging and loving one another. I would propose having no power structure, as such. Each individual should be as independent as possible (you wouldn't mooch off your friends), and ask for help freely when it is needed (you wouldn't want your friends to keep you in the dark when they need things). If a teacher comes along, then by all means they should teach. If a healer comes along, they should heal, etc. They should not assume anything other than a servant's position. At very least, we can change the way we spend our time together, to reflect  more of a focus on eachother and not "the leadership".

The current institution of 'churches' is poisonous and unhelpful. If we want to grow, we need to revolve to a new/old relation-based, love based model of meeting. Only in this way will we be able to effectively encourage and edify each other.

Laziness

'Tis the voice of the sluggard; I heard him complain,

"You have waked me too soon, I must slumber again."

As the door on its hinges, so he on his bed,

Turns his sides and his shoulders and his heavy head.

"A little more sleep, and a little more slumber;"

Thus he wastes half his days, and his hours without number,

And when he gets up, he sits folding his hands,

Or walks about sauntering, or trifling he stands.

I pass'd by his garden, and saw the wild brier,

The thorn and the thistle grow broader and higher;

The clothes that hang on him are turning to rags;

And his money still wastes till he starves or he begs.

I made him a visit, still hoping to find

That he took better care for improving his mind:

He told me his dreams, talked of eating and drinking;

But scarce reads his Bible, and never loves thinking.

Said I then to my heart, "Here's a lesson for me,"

This man's but a picture of what I might be:

But thanks to my friends for their care in my breeding,

Who taught me betimes to love working and reading.

by Isaac Watts

    I really like that poem. Probably because I memorized it at one point. I also like that poem because I like what it talks about.

    Sluggardly-ness (or laziness), is a big problem for humanity. It is the desire not to work or expend energy- wanting to do nothing but sleep and sit. This becomes a big problem for individuals when this desire conflicts with the pursuit of necessary and good things, like health, relationships, beauty, cleanliness, godliness, etc. That list could be much longer, and the problem of laziness doesn't stop there. It must be solved then. How does one go about that? Let's think about it...

    The essence of being a sluggard lies in a desire to do nothing. It isn't exactly apathy, because laziness also tends to care about comfort, but it does share some of apathy's qualities. The more you give in to either, the more you get dragged back by them. They also share a destructive quality.

    In the poem by Watt, the story about the sluggard comes to a part where the onlooker passes the sluggard's garden. Gardens are great, they are meant to be pretty and productive, but this person's garden is overgrown and untended. It is entirely unproductive, and is even making thorns. The sluggard is physically decaying, living in ragged clothes, and he is financially dependent on others, who are industrious enough to have a surplus. The next verse talks about his mental decay, in his focus on comfort and his neglect of his Bible and his faculties. Now, this is not a real story, so we cannot say that this is what happens to everyone who is lazy just because a poem said so, but I think if we look into ourselves we can see the truth of what the poet is saying. Laziness in work, physical care, financial endeavors, and thinking, and Bible study- these are real threats to our integrity.

     How do we guard against the threat? There are a few routes: you can choose not to guard, and just fall into laziness. That works for many modern people, but given God's words about it, I would say this is unwise. You could also choose to make a rule for yourself not to be lazy- in other words, take the legal approach. You have rules, standards, boundaries, and those are your focus. This approach, if you haven't already seen it, is a legalistic approach, and the flesh automatically rebels and sabotages it. The way that is best is the way God provides. Walk in the holy spirit. Follow where God takes you. He leads you to the work he has laid out, and you can know that he will always give you the right kind of rest in the right proportions.

So, this is the conclusion: laziness is bad. It has debilitating repercussions. We don't want to be sluggards. The best way to avoid being a sluggard is clinging to God, fearing him, and following him. That is my two cents.