tom,
I would have preferred the term disciples there rather than missionaries. I believe our sentness is a natural result of our relationship to Christ as disciples.

len,
Thanks for the links. I thought I remembered talking about this before.

Here is a quote from my previous post discussing PC and some of your thoughts on institution.

I would like to see us explore ecclesial mentalities rather than ecclesial models. When we talk about institutionalism versus organism, we should not assume that either of these traits applies to a specific model without exception.

That is still basically my conclusion about this. A couple of the ecclesial mentalities that you brought up in your post and that have been mentioned here also are Spirit-directed and kingdom-centered.

rose,
Good thoughts. Wright’s book sounds great and sounds like it would be a good companion book to Winn Griffith’s book.

I think that unique expression is one aspect of organic nature. Mechanized systems produce cookie-cutter results, but nature produces an infinite number of unique life forms.

Now how that mission is lived out as followers of Jesus can look very different for all sorts of folk…don’t you think that is part of the discussion?

and

http://nextreformation.com/?p=1968

Church gatherings were never the intended goal; they were the natural result of people finding others who were living their alternative Kingdom story. The goal of our missional life is not to grow churches. The goal of church is to grow missionaries. The goal of the gospel is not to get people to church. The result of the gospel is that people will find each other and gather because of the deep meaning of a common experience.

I think I’m understanding the two Bros to be saying that God’s purpose is not recruitment for institutional bee-hive busy-ness. I fully agree that the “goal of the Gospel is not to get people to church” (i.e., into buildings and programs ?). However, I’m having trouble stepping over the statement that “THE goal of church is to grow missionaries.”

So, what exactly is a “missionary” and where does Jesus, Paul, Peter, et al, tell us that THE goal of the Godspell and the ecclesia is to produce missionaries?

I’m hesitant to swap *institutional* legalisms for a *missional* legalisms…and that aspect of the quote from Halter and Smay conveys a distinct *institutional* wiff which smells artifical–certainly not organic.

Tom

The church is not the destination, but it is a connector… to get people where they really want to go – which is ‘life’. That’s what Jesus came to give us. He didn’t say he came to give us ‘church’… but LIFE. The destination is the kingdom, because that’s where life is; that’s where the king is.

I would grant that the church, the people of God, do not contain the totality of the Kingdom (the rule and dominion of God), yet the Kingdom devoid of the church is a picture of the Bridegroom standing at a wedding with no Bride.

Tom

I would also agree that for institutions to be reformed toward organic it will require the death of the institution as priority. Personally, I am not sure this is possible. But I do not believe that the institution will require anyone or thing for it to die. If it is not a viable ongoing form of ekklesia expression it will die on its own. The important thing is for people to understand the institutions limitations.

As we live in perhaps one of the most significant transition periods in history for all institutions it is pretty clear that even if the institution survives it will look dramatically different than now. Any transition, by definition, means we live partially in the past, partially in the present, while glimpsing a part of the future. What an exciting adventure!

Whether within or without the institution what Sarah has described is directionally the future, in my opinion.

Just got my copy of “Tangible Kingdom” yesterday. Looking forward to reading it….

I agree — great discussion here.

jake,
Definitions are important in a discussion like this. It is complicated by the fact that we each “hear” different meanings and intentions when we use words like institution or church.

jeff,
I remember that your review of Present Future caught my attention.

wayne,
My intention was not to imply that traditional church should be thrown out. I am saying that we need to take a look at the institutionalization of something that was intended to function more organically.

Let me set out some definitions of these words as I am using them:

structure – a basic framework or shape
organization – a) (verb) to create structure and order
b) (noun) a group, club, institution, or corporation
institution – an established structure that is an entity in itself
church – the people of God

A brief summary of my position would be that we need to address institutionalization when it is a hindrance to the organic life of the church in whatever structure that church happens to gather.

I believe if you were to re-read the quotes, you would see that none of them suggest throwing out a particular model of church.

rose,
From previous conversations, I know that we are pretty much on the same page. I am not necessarily for a particular model of church as much as I am for encouraging organic life and missional expression. I applaud and am inspired by what you guys are modeling in transitioning existing congregations away from institutionalization.

Steve,
Substituting religious activity for relationship with Christ has been a tendency of humans all along. Involvement in an institution can mask our lack of real relationship. People content within any system are least likely to see the inherent flaws of the system.

Will a growing relationship with Christ cause a member to become frustrated with the institutional nature of some churches? Yes, I think that does and is happening. In fact, I believe that is largely responsible for what has become the emerging church and other related non-traditional models.

Tom,
Exactly. The organic nature of the church is within the body of people not the structure. The problem with institutions is that they are an entity in themselves usually taking priority over the individuals.

As you said, whatever the structure, the important question is, does it encourage or hinder life?

traveller,
The reason for the statement of false dichotomy is because all organic life has a semblance of structure and organization.

I agree that an institution itself is not organic, but the question as you said is whether it can support and produce organic life regularly and repeatedly.

I don’t like to argue for particular models because house church can be as institutionalized as traditional church. I would much rather focus on the end result of creating organic life and missional expression and encourage people in whatever model to pursue that end.

I tend to believe that current institutions can be reformed, however it will require the death of the institution as priority and whether those involved are willing to make the changes that entails.

sarah,
Thanks for sharing that. It is a great description of what relational, organic church life looks like for many who are “outside the box” of traditional church.