Why Christians Don't Need Institutions in Order to Screw Up

In an earlier post we looked at Lesslie Newbigin's contention that denominational institutions are a particular kind of anti-sacrament. An odd thing, maybe, for a Protestant to contend, but the idea that schism is bad is not new, either.  What IS new is Newbigin's subsequent contention that a) institutions AND b) unaffiliated individuals (oftentimes perceived as the opposite or alternative of institutions) ironically share the same doomed trust in the prevailing secular ideology that relegates spirituality to the purely private sphere.  This insight should challenge anti-institutional folks to nuance their surface critiques and look for real and developed alternatives of hope.

Plainly, Newbigin believes he has discovered the flaw that makes institutions worthy of suspicion, and it happens to be the same flaw that those not committed to institutions often make.  Such a revelation is vitally important to explore since the goal is the flourishing of the Church's mission and eliminating an identified challenge is not the same as constructing a positive solution.  

Not surprisingly, Newbigin believes this hope has as its source the Gospel of Christ, and especially here he makes an appeal to reclaiming a "true apocalyptic".  Notice what is happening: the flaw is no longer the mere existence of institutions (a clumsy thing to blame since institutions refer to people working together in any kind of organized way) but is now located in how we relate and respond to the action of the living God - the hope we have in Christ.  Here is Newbigin:

There can be no missionary encounter with our culture without a biblically grounded eschatology, without recovering a true apocalyptic.  The dichotomy that runs through our culture between the private and the public worlds is reflected in the dissolution of the biblical vision of the last things into two separate and unrelated forms of hope.  One is the public hope for a better world in the future, the heavenly city of the eighteenth-century French philosophers, the utopia of the evolutionary social planners, or the classless society of the revolutionary sociologists.  The other is the private hope for personal immortality in a blessed world beyond this one.  This dissolution is tragic.  It destroys the integrity of the human person.  If I pin my hope to a perfect word that is to be prepared for some future generations, I know that I and my contemporaries will never live to see it, and therefore that those now living can be - and if necessary must be - sacrificed in the interests of those as yet unborn; and so the way is open for the ruthless logic of totalitarian planners and social engineers.  If on the other hand I place all my hope in a personal future, I am tempted to wash my hands of responsibility for the public life of the word and to turn inwards towards a purely private spirituality.

That tragic split runs right through our lives and our society, and only the biblical understanding of the last things can heal that dichotomy.  The apocalyptic teaching that forms such an important part of the New Testament has generally in our culture been pushed to the margins of Christian thought.  It has been treasured, of course, by small oppressed groups on the margins of our society, but it has been generally silenced in the mainstream of our established Christianity.  Essentially this says to us: If I ask what in all my active life is the horizon of my expectations, the thing to which I look forward, the answer, it seems to me, cannot be some future utopia in the future and cannot be some personal bliss for myself, it can only be, quite simply, the coming of Jesus to complete his Father's will.  He shall come again.  He is the horizon of my expectations.  Everything from my side, whether prayer or action, private or public, is done to him and for him.  It is simply offered for his use.  In the words of Schweitzer, it is an 'acted prayer for His coming.'  He will make of it what he will.  My vigorous and righteous actions do not build the holy city.  They are too shot through with sin for that.  But they are acted prayers that he will give the holy city.  And that embraces both the public and the private world.  The holy city, as its name indicates, is on the one hand the crown and perfection of all that we call civilization.  Into it the kinds of the nations bring their cultural treasures.  But it is also the place where every tear is wiped from our eyes and we are the beloved children of God who see him face to face.  Only in that vision and hope is the tragic dichotomy of our culture healed.

Are Denominations Anti-Sacraments? (and who do they worship?)

I am currently on the home-stretch of Paul Weston's Lesslie Newbigin Reader. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

The more I read, the less patience I have for any missional/emerging conversation that is not in knowledgeable and active conversation with Newbigin's writings. Newbigin consistently asks the difficult questions upon which the missional church rightly insists, but he steadfastly avoids Pelagian solutions that would turn missionary efforts into technical attempts to "get it right." Better said, Newbigin perceives the theological resources available to the whole system, rather than zero in on a particular perceived "issue", read in isolation of the whole. And "the whole" for Newbigin is always the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A great example of this Christ-centered perspective at work comes in his consideration of denominational institutions. Rather than pit institutions in the bad camp and all other forms on the good, his analysis lands him at the heart of the challenge: a gospel-based rationale for freedom of thought that is capable of stepping outside of the inherited basis for that freedom in Western thought, which comes via the Enlightenment. So doing, he saves us the embarrassment that occurs when well-meaning Christians change everything only to realize that they have really changed nothing, because we have not been able to accurately see ourselves, much less sufficiently see ourselves.

Here are some highlights from his observations:

"...the denomination is simply the institutional form of privatized religion. It is a voluntary association of individuals. It is to put it simply - the outward and visible form of an inward and spiritual surrender to the ideology of our culture."

"They cannot confront our culture as Jesus confronted Pontius Pilate with the witness to the truth, since they do not claim to be more than associations of individuals who hold the same opinion."

"I believe that it is possible to act effectively in each local situation in such a way that the Christians together in each place begin even now to be recognizable as the Church for that place."

"If we are to escape from the ideology of the Enlightenment without falling into the errors of Corpus Christianum, we must recover a doctrine of freedom of thought and conscience that is founded not on the ideology of the Enlightenment but on the gospel."

When Ministry Doesn't "Work"

Like so many others, my church is finding new life and renewed energy through recent, creative, small - and not so small - attempts to step beyond our comfort zones into relationship with neighbors and strangers.  I'm proud of my church, God's People in Portland.  We're rising to the challenge.  God is surprising us.

And/but/yet/even so...

Like so many others, our church members, on their honest days - in the midst of all of these really good things - have the courage to ask: What if it doesn't work?

What if it doesn't work?

It's an interesting question.  The question reveals a hidden tension that exists in most quasi-missional organizations.  The tension is that, while St Christopher's and others may be convinced that the old ways of being Church are passing away - remember Bishop Spong's provocative book title: "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" - the compulsion to change issues from the implicit promise that "this new way will work."  But whether or not the new way "works" remains evaluated, ultimately, by the measure of people who begin coming to church, if not by increased financial giving, as a result of these efforts.  The new ways are (perhaps erroneously) accepted as means to the old ends.

What if it doesn't work?  What if the people we serve in God's Name never come around?

Of course, put that way, God Himself, on an honest day, might have asked the question.  It's the story of the whole Scriptures: a wayward People running from the God who will not stop loving them.  What can we learn from God's love?  In our growing to share God's heart for others, are we discovering the full depth and breadth of unconditional love, which of course is love without strings and conditional expectations?

Maybe this is precisely the door to the intersection of our passions, God's call, and - as Frederick Buechner put it - the world's deepest need: that in asking ourselves what else we would be doing if what we are presently doing doesn't work, we find the permission to give that part of ourselves, freely, abundantly, without reservation and/or resentment.  Maybe we discover the true selves God has given us to share with God, one another, and the world.  And we glorify God.

This whole past week, I've been remembering a stranger I met years ago in Chapel Hill.  It was late at night, I was driving home - the familiar 15/501 - when the car began making a terrible noise.  I pulled over at a gas station.  A flat.  I am proud to say that I am much more equipped now for such a moment and such a discovery, but the truth in that moment was that I didn't know where to start.  I was a theology student.

A security guard checked in on me, made sure I was okay, and left.  Said he didn't have time, that it wasn't his job, which was true.  It was getting really late.  A few, panicked minutes later, the gas station clerk emerged from his store and made his way up to me.   He playfully chided me for my lack of knowledge, and then he jacked up my car and changed the tire.  I helped some.

As he was finishing, I reached for my wallet to see if what I had to give him.  The clerk, now more friend than clerk, stopped me.  "No, no," he said.  "But Allah be praised."

What if the only thing that "works" in our efforts as Christians, as Church, is that God is glorified as we reach out in the Name of Christ to the poor, the lost, the rich, the hungry, the theology students?  No expectations.  No strings.  Do things become simpler when the strategic mission before us is "glorify God in all things"?  Can that ever not "work"?

Unconditional.