In his new book, The Forgotten Ways, (a seminal book, one of the best I’ve read in years), in a chapter on organic systems, Hirsch states:
Perhaps a further exploration of what is meant by institutionalism is needed here. Institutions are organizations initially set up in order to fill a necessary religious and social function and to provide some sort of structural support for whatever that function requires. In many ways they fulfill the very purpose of structure; organization is needed if we seek to act collectively for a common cause. All movements start this way, but in the initial stages structure exists solely to support the grass roots. The problem happens when the newly instituted structures move beyond being simply structural support to become a governing body of sorts – structure becomes centralized governance…
But something else begins to happen: as we outsource to the structure what is essential to the function, there is a transfer of responsibility and power/authority to the new established centralized body. In this situation it inevitability becomes the locus of power, which uses some of that power to sanction behaviors of its members that are out of keeping with the institution. Instead of serving the mission, institutions begin to have a life of their own, and they can become blockers, not “blessers…”
As far as I am aware, no historical denomination has ever been able to fully recover its earlier, more fluid and dynamic, movement ethos again. That’s why it is the network structure, where power and responsibility is diffused throughout the organization and not concentrated at the center, that more approximates our real nature and calling as the body of Christ.
Did Alan study the SBC? Has he been to any of the state conventions this year?
I have come to the belief that the SBC has been incredible institutional. We have transfered responsibility for education and missions and those institutions are becoming blockers, not blessers. They have created a power structure that are sanctioning and rejecting beliefs and behaviors that are not in line with the institution (see the IMB and SWBTS). Unless a movement happens that reverts these institutions back to a support role instead of a role of power, we will find ourselves becoming so institutionalized that our declines becomes death.
Is it any wonder that a grassroots movement is attempting to be dismantled? (see anti-blogging reports from the SBC convention in Greensboro and other state conventions around the country) Power and significance are lost in this rising movement, thus it must be destroyed or at least anathamatized. Otherwise, as stated above, the SBC will go the way of irrelevance.
Thanks for forwarding our attention to this article.
It’s absolutely frightening and seems he was “on record” at SBC conventions.
SBC has taken on a life of it’s on, a political life and power.
This quote …”As far as I am aware, no historical denomination has ever been able to fully recover its earlier, more fluid and dynamic, movement ethos again”
The question is.. is death imminent because as he points once you cross this line recovery is next to impossible, because in that sense some could and probably would continue to attempt to breath life into it’s corpse. I see this almost daily in churches.
Or is death imminent because God is cutting away at the root of the tree?
Now that’s dead.
Selah
Excellent, David. You are right on. Re: you question about whether or not Hirsch has been studying the SBC, I would say, probably not. And that, in and of itself is very interesting, in my opinion. When do you ever hear outside critiques of the health of the SBC? Where are those in the larger Christian body who are calling us to effectiveness? Or within the SBC, for that matter?
Except for the bloggers that is.
Excellent analysis. I agree completely.
Interesting insights…I can’t wait for the book to come out.
Just an FYI, I don’t recall exactly, but I do believe that Ed Stetzer in Breaking the Missional Code argues that denominations are going to have to become more of a supporting and resourcing group instead of the institutional organism they are currently. He deals with the issue of denominations later in the book, and I think he does a great job with it. And I’m sure that many denom guys don’t like it, as they would reject any reference to being institutionalized. Something about not being able to see the forest for the trees?
Thanks for the comments one an all
I would agree. Thanks for pointing this article out. Nice blog.
David, this quite interesting. I wonder if this creeping centralization of power and this bent toward self-preservation of the organization is part of the life cycle of any entity of this nature? Thoughts?
Chris,
That’s a great question. I haven’t studied enough organizational systems to know, but my initial reaction would be yes. I would say that it completely happens in the local church. Far too many are in self-preservation mode.
One more thought…
I believe that the post-denominational expression is here, and people are just not as geared towards the convention as before. I’m willing to partner is a variety of ways with a variety of groups to do kingdom work in Delaware. I’ll take money from the presbyterians, catholics, methodists…whomever as long as there are no restrictions on the use of the money. We’ll use it to build God’s kingdom, not our own. We’ll partner with them to do missions, to rebuild homes, etc as well. We would be in limited partnership with them on some things, full partners on others, and that would depend on the issue.
Frankly, I’m becoming convinced that unless NAMB and the IMB become more like glocal.net, meaning, a resource and partner instead of dictator (which they are now and why others are using different groups for missions), then they will become irrelevent and unnecessary.