The Church

Here is a particularly interesting question: the nature of the church. The purpose here is to talk about the church in its more general, larger, sense. It is to ponder what makes our evangelical or quasi-evangelical church what it is. At its most basic the church is an intersection between institutional arrangements and Christians. It is Christians carrying on their business. In the strict Biblical terms, the church is the body of believers. Yet, church as we understand it in the contemporary complexion has taking on this second element of institutional arrangements. Even for a church attempting to restore New Testament practices this second element has become intertwined into the church.

In some senses, the institutional arrangement has becoming a more primary structural force than the individual Christians in the western world. Why? Because in a marketplace or consumer culture churches are not static. In a globalized word, even if people were loyal to churches, they would inevitably move and shift. What becomes permanent in a shifting people world? Institutional arraignments. Likewise, churches – for better or worse – have allowed institutional arraignments to define them. Paradigms of church structure are always the buzz words in the evangelical world because institution is paramount.

Throughout time it seems churches have been in a two-way equation with political and cultural; effecting culture and politics, but also barrowing heavily. Is it any surprise that in the United States almost all churches are predicated around some time of voting system? Democracy of some flavor or another is the norm in our part of the world and our church institutions reflect it. But even this does not really characterize church. It is this fundamental marketplace mentality which defines churches because it is this mentality which leads to institutions. The primacy of religious institutional structure is the defining characteristic of the church. In essence, church is defined by the institutional structure it creates or steals (in the intellectual sense of the word).

Even just cursorily such a proposition seems likely. In a world where people move from denomination to denomination without thinking twice can we really positive theology or doctrine is the defining characteristic of the church? In an era where to name your church with a group is paramount to heresy can it honestly be stated the church is defined by non-institutional means? I doubt it. Church has become defined by the way it is arraigned. A family seeking a church look at the institutional structure to decide of what value it is. Therefore the church has stressed institution over doctrine. If consumers look at it providers must change – the invisible hand of the market at play.

But how should church be? What should church really look like? A beginning response might be the restoration of the New Testament. Of course this raises the question of the possibility of true restoration. Probably the most fundamental restoration would need to be a shift from institutional to doctrine and people, i.e. Christians and beliefs. Is this possible? I doubt I could offer a cogent answer. It is easy enough to criticize the numerous fallacies that arise from a market driven church and it is relatively simple to offer a normative ideal, but it is entirely different to understand the implication or possibilities of that normative position functioning in an empirical world. In essence, are we doomed to be tied inexorably to the primacy of institution?

I think it is possible, although difficult, to rise above the mentality of our political culture. It would start with reinforcing belief over institution. Institutions do not need to be the primary dialogue in our churches, because that is and will continue to be the trend anyway. Proper institutional structures should flow necessarily from proper doctrine. If the focus is on doctrine and belief, institutions will follow, but they will cease to be our defining characteristic. The discourse of churches therefore needs to be shifted as one step. Another would be a shift from corporate structure. As long as churches mimic corporations, they will tend to mimic the marketplace features in which corporations operate. This to, I believe, would be a side-effect of focusing on doctrine.

For now, regardless of normative postulating, churches are defined by institutional arrangements. Willow Creek models, emerging church paradigms and a variety of other structural positions will be fundamental to what is ‘church’ regardless to what it should be. While doctrine will seem jumbled and bizarre, institutional arraignments will be seen as the new doctrine. The post-modern church is one where meaning, like all post-modern life, has lost meaning in search of the illusive image. Instead of remaining adrift in this sea it has anchored itself to institution. This is the church.