What is Our Christianity

It may seem an odd question to ask, but what is our Christianity? I am not speaking here of institutional methodology. Before that question lies this more important question of fundamentals. On the one hand as Christians we are individual: faith is between me and God. Justification is singular since the time of the Jews. Yet, we are called to come together and somehow to interact with other individuals. Here is the institution. There seem to be two important junctures in this process. The first is the tenets of our individual belief with God. Before anything else comes what we believe and here is where I either am or am not a Christian. Even if we choose Christianity, however, the question is not finished. Now comes that messy institutional question: how should I relate to other self-proclaimed individual Christians. What is my relationship to others who wish to, and freely can, take the name of Christian?

The second question, of how I relate to other questions, is colored completely by the first. As much as we would all strive to see a unified body, as long as people answer question one differently there will be no unity. How, therefore, do we achieve a body in a fragmented implementation of the message of the New Testament? Is not the ultimate position to reduce ourselves back down to individuals standing before the Almighty God? Yet we have rejected this position. And we have simultaneously rejected the possibility of unity. What option is left?

The option is the mishmash we have before us: the Christian smorgasbord of variety, a flavor for every desire; if taken to its extreme we are back to complete individuality. But can we bend ourselves to the will of the collective desire of the Church? What even is the collective desire of the Church? One, I suppose, could argue that it is the institutional structure. For Catholics this would be there Pope and the hierarchy -- bending one’s will to meet the needs of the Church. Yet the Church, even the Catholic Church, changes position. So even here, how should one ‘lobby’ the Church? If one looses the lobby what does this mean?

One solution to this issue is to accept every individual as is. This would be our postmodern brethren in some respects. Nobody can find consensus so every individual can mush together what helps him. Of course, then what defines Christianity? If it is everything, then it is nothing. So we must impose structure at some level as Christians. There are some things we agree upon that are “Christian” and others which are “non-Christian.” Of course, who exactly is ‘we’? And by defining ‘we’ have we not defined ourselves?

For every “externally focused” outward looking Church the world is filled with pre-Christians and we are attempting to lasso them into ourselves. We have started to do this quite well. In the process we have lost who we are. We have left behind what defines us and ties us together! Christians should gather together for the purpose of Christianity. Not for any other purpose. Then, as one becomes a Christian he will become part of our dysfunctional body. But at least we will know what that body is. This is not a smorgasbord. As much as I want others to become part of my family, they have to be willing to be adopted. They have to accept what it means to be ‘us.’

And I think it is in this process whereby people accept certain tenets that allow them to enter our extended Christian family. It will define who we are, even while others attempt to deconstruct us. If deconstructed we will be atomized! Left wandering in the desert, only this time, alone. As wrong as our structures can get, we need them. And the structures require us. Within that interaction is what it means to be Christian.

Understanding Change in Church

Churches are undergoing a radical change! I am confident in such a statement because Churches are always undergoing change. No sooner will have one change been initiated than another will fill its void: for all of time it will be safe to print the words “church is changing.” One could become hung up on the particularistic nature of change. That is we could analyze endlessly the newest change and what it is bringing to the table, but this is patently unnecessary, and limiting. Because whatever particular change is being discussed will only last until the next change! The larger, and largely ignored, question is: why do Churches change? And can we categorize and understand those whys in a systematic manner?

Clearly, such a project is beyond the scope of a blog, but the beginnings of questioning it are not. Examine any particular church movement. One recent example is mega-church phenomenon. It is now giving way to an emergent church. Why? Some might argue that changes occur do to worldview shifts. Many might argue that the mega-church is the pinnacle of the modernist movement and the emergent is the new postmodern times finally coming to fruit. This, quite frankly, is analytic drivel! It’s a post hoc attempt to justify change as opposed to truly understand it in any meaningful way. The era of modernism may indeed have been in many eras of life been surpassed by postmodernism, yet postmodernism is passing away and in its place is arising neomoderism. Postmodernism is a dead topic used by the Church a generation too late to explain a change which would have occurred regardless of worldview.

The driving force in American culture is consumerism. We buy things. We are entertained. And if we get bored with those two we build things – big things. The mega-churches were the natural result of making church consumer minded. The unchurched were our target sales group and we pitched Vegas shows to them with some success given the number whom attend those churches. The only difference between a mega-church and a mall is that the church helps you with parking. A trend at which malls everywhere should be looking. There is nothing inherently “modern” about consumerism. It is a cultural phenomenon. What about those newest groups that grow funny beards and call themselves Emergent? Are they the escape of consumerism? No, they are merely the newest form of it.

Look at ads. What does Nike sell? Shoes or an attitude? Attitude, but, by the way to get that attitude you are going to need our shoes. Consumerism has changed and emergent churches are the first churches to import the trend. They are selling “spirituality” for the newest generation like the mega-churches sold “church” to the boomers. Neither is particularly Biblical, but that is kind of beside the point when you are trying to sell something. In the case of our newest church ‘movement’ it is spirituality. Is it radically different from selling church? No. But changes are rarely radical.

What does this tell us about change then? For one it shows that church institutions mimic successful institutions around them. There are historical reasons why the Catholic Church has a hierarchical structure. Neither is it a surprise that New World churches would be congregational. Now, in an age when the newest forms of power are wielded from sources of economic position, it is no surprise to see the CEO model Church. And just like Silicon Valley and Toyota revamped organizational structure to sell attitude, so too is the emergent church mimicking this newest organizational model. If we want to understand the future changes in the church we should look at the successful organizations of today. Because ten years from now, some minister or congregation will be barrowing the idea and church will ‘change’ once again.

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.