|
Foundry United Methodist Church Rev. Dean Snyder, Senior Minister |
|
|
Sermon Series: Christianity
Without Easy Answers “What about the Institutional Church?”
Sunday, February 15,
2009
|
|
|
Matthew 16: 13-23
Rev. Dean Snyder |
He looks like a guy you might run into
at a Cure or Banshees concert.[i] He says
he hangs out a lot with young adults who don’t go to church, even though he
himself is a pastor, and he has come to the conclusion that lots of people
who don’t go to church like Jesus but they do not like the organized church.
So this book is about what he has learned from young people who don’t go to
church about what they don’t like about church. For
example, he says one of the things that people say to him about why they
don’t go to church is because they think ministers are sort of creepy. There
are six main things he says that he hears over and over again from people who
don’t go to church. 1. The
church is an organized religion with a political agenda. 2. The
church is judgmental and negative. 3. The
church is dominated by males and oppresses females. 4. The
church is homophobic. 5. The
church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong. 6. The
church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally. So what
Dan Kimball does in his book is to try to help evangelical churches appear to
be less judgmental and negative, appear to be less oppressive to women, appear
to be less homophobic, etc., in order to reach people who currently aren’t
part of churches. Now, I wish he had come right out and just told the
churches to stop being judgmental and negative and to just stop oppressing
women and just stop being homophobic, but then maybe they wouldn’t buy his
book. I want
to suggest this morning that the institutional church is a problem and that the problem runs even deeper than Dan
Kimball has realized, and I want us here this morning to try to be very
honest and candid about the problem. The institutional church is a problem,
and I want to encourage us to face the problem squarely. What is
the fundamental problem of the institutional church? It is a bit complicated
so let me try to unpack it from my perspective. The
first part of it is has to do with the behavior and morality of the
individual human being in comparison to the behavior and morality of the
collective. The definitive work on this is Reinhold Niebuhr’s 1932 pre-World
War II book Moral Man and Immoral
Society. I reread much of it again recently. Here is the opening sentence
of the introduction to the book. “The
thesis to be elaborated in these pages is that a sharp distinction must be
drawn between the moral and social behavior of individuals and of social
groups, national, racial, and economic; and that this distinction justifies
and necessitates political policies which a purely individualistic ethic must
always find embarrassing.”[ii] Collectives
have a morality that is different from the morality of individual person.
Corporations, nations, institutions do things out of a sense of necessity
that, if you and I were to do them, we would be ashamed. Niebuhr
talks mostly about societies and nations. The highest moral ideal for a
society, he says, is justice. The highest ideal for the individual is
unselfishness. There is a tension between the two. Listen
again to Niebuhr: “Society must strive for justice even if is forced to use
means, such as self-assertion, resistance, coercion and perhaps resentment,
which cannot gain the moral sanction of the most sensitive moral spirit….
These two moral perspectives are not mutually exclusive and the contradiction
between them is not absolute. But neither are they easily harmonized.”[iii]
How
many of us, I wonder, no matter how great our personal abhorrence for
violence, would we ourselves vote for a total pacifist for president of the
United States? Shane Claiborne wrote a book called Jesus for President. How many of us would be willing to elect
someone willing to go to the cross as president? I think this is Niebuhr’s
point in Moral Man and Immoral Society.
He says there is an inherent conflict between ethics and politics. The
church is a collective. It is an institution. If the highest good of the
individual is unselfishness and the highest good of the society is justice,
what is the highest good of an institution? I mean the highest good of an
institution as an institution? Not any particular institution but institution
qua institution? The
answer is continuity. Here one definition of institutions: “Institutions are
identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual
human lives and intentions…”[iv]
Douglass North says “The primary purpose of institutions in a society is to
reduce uncertainty by establishing a stable (but not necessarily efficient)
structure for human interaction.[v]
The purpose and highest good of any institution is continuity, permanence,
transcending individual lives or intentions, transcending generations. What would
it be like if we had to invent education afresh every generation from the
get-go…if we started out with no schools, no colleges, no libraries, no
collections of literature, no body of knowledge, no teaching profession? What if
we had to invent an economy every generation from scratch…if we started out
with no currency, no banks, no regulatory systems, no economic theories, no
professions? Institutions
are the way we keep from needing to reinvent the wheel every generation. That
is the purpose and highest good of institutions – continuity, permanence,
transcending individual lives or intentions, transcending generations. Well,
there is an inherent tension between the teachings and mindset of Jesus and
the purposes and highest good of an institution. Jesus says repent of the
past and do not be anxious about tomorrow. Jesus says give yourself away.
Jesus says do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth. Institutions
exist to provide continuity between the past and the future, to preserve, and
to provide for future generations on earth. Just as
Niebuhr says it is not impossible but persistently difficult for societies to
be moral, it is also not impossible but persistently difficult for
institutions to be Christian. The
problem is not just that churches as institutions can lose their way; the
problem is that churches as institutions are highly likely to lose their way.
On the
other hand, without religious institutions we would have to invent faith anew
every generation from nothing…what would it be like if we had to begin every
generation with no scriptures, no literature, no rituals, no hymnology, no
practices, no sacraments, no traditions. Sometimes
in social settings outside the church I will meet parents who will say to me,
“We are not exposing our children to religion so that they can decide for
themselves when they are older what they want to be.” I am
very polite when this conversation comes up, but, honestly, what I want to
say is: “Have you considered not exposing your children to words, so that
they can decide for themselves what language they want to speak when they
grow up?” Institutions
change but it is in their very nature to resist change because their greatest
good is continuity and permanence. It is not impossible for institutions to
be Christian. It is just difficult to the point of being unlikely. Now,
there is another complication in this issue of the tension between the
teachings of Jesus and the institution, and it has to do with the nature of
religious institutions. It has to do with the nature of religion itself. The
word religion, Augustine said, comes from ligare "to bind, to
connect"; so re-ligare, means "to reconnect." Religion
is about the experience of connectedness…feeling connected with God, feeling
connected with others, both those alive and dead and not yet born. When we
come to a religious assembly, in order to feel connected, we enter an
attitude of voluntary conformity. We agree to conform our behavior in order to
experience a sense of connectedness. We read
things and say things in unison. Where else do you go in your life where you
read or say things in unison, unless maybe you are a Mason? We say things in
unison in church – we conform – in order to experience a sense of
connectedness. Have you ever sat next to a person in church who when we say
or read something in unison has to be unique? They read every word just an
instant before or after everyone else? Don’t you find that annoying? We say
things in unison we voluntarily surrender our uniqueness in order to
experience a sense of connection and belonging. We come
to church and conform to singing the hymns listed in the bulletin. Some of us
don’t say, I really feel like singing Amazing
Grace today so while everyone else is singing Holy, Holy, Holy, I am going to sing Amazing Grace. We may complain after the service about the hymns
Dee and Stanley picked but during the service we voluntarily confirm for the
sake of the very important and very powerful experience of connecting. We
conform ourselves to participate in rituals and ceremonies that we ourselves
would have never thought up. They help us to feel connected to those who have
gone before us and generations to come. You know who is really, really good
at this? Catholics. When you go to Mass you genuflect, and there are certain
phrases you automatically repeat, you kneel at certain points in the service,
you hold your hands a certain way to receive communion, you do the sign of
the cross. You conform your behavior big time. The pay-off is that Mass helps
you feel really connected. Religious
institutions emphasize conformity because it is by conforming that we
experience the sense of connection and unity and belonging. I was
at a service in one of those churches that emphasizes teaching rather than
preaching. They had a screen upfront and the pastor was teaching on Romans
12:2 A great verse: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by
the renewing of your mind.” He had up
on the screen the words: “Do not be conformed.” And he said to the
congregation: Say that out loud with me and everybody said in unison “Do not
be conformed.” Say it again, he said, and everyone obediently said in unison:
“Be not conformed.” And he did it a third time, and I wondered to myself if I
was the only one seeing the irony in this? Religion
is to a significant degree about conforming in order to experience the
transcendence of connectivity…to voluntarily surrender our uniqueness for a
time in order to experience our oneness with God and the universe and with
humanity. By the
way, you will notice that totalitarian states of the right or the left often
have a lot of similarities to religions. There are songs that sound like
hymns, there are pledges of allegiances that are recited in unison like
creeds, there are rituals and practices (Sieg Heil), there is marching…all
meant to induce conformity. Here’s
the problem: Jesus was not about conforming. Jesus was about speaking his
truth. He was about integrity. He was about breaking rules when they don’t
make sense or harm people. He was about parables and discoveries. So
there is not only a tension between the teachings and life of Jesus and
institutions but there is a particular tension between Jesus and religious
institutions. So I
want to say this morning that the problem is deeper than some churches being
sexist or homophobic and some ministers being sort of creepy. There is an
inherent tension between Jesus and institutions and especially religious
institutions, which is what the church is.
I think
that there has been an awareness of this tension on the part of thoughtful
Christians from the very beginning. Our gospel lesson from Matthew is
fascinating. Peter affirms Jesus as the messiah, the child of the living God.
Jesus says to Peter “Blessed are you…flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you but my Parent in heaven. You are Peter and on this rock I will build my
church.” The
very next thing that happens is that Jesus talks about his upcoming
crucifixion and Peter says “God forbid.” And Jesus calls Peter Satan and says
“You are a stumbling block to me for you are setting your mind not on divine
things but on human things.” What
just happened? After a flash of spiritual insight about who Jesus is, Peter
almost immediately starts thinking institutionally. Jesus is talking about
crucifixion and Peter is thinking about institutional concerns: continuity,
permanence, transcending individual lives or intentions. Jesus is talking about
his suffering and death, his separation; Peter is thinking in terms of
conformity and connectedness. No
sooner does Jesus in the story establish the church than it becomes a
stumbling block to Jesus. Matthew understands the problem. So
here’s the question: What do we do about it? If there is an inevitable
tension between the institutional church and the teachings and life of Jesus,
where does that leave us? If we are drawn to Jesus Christ but understand that
it is very hard for the institutional church to actually manage being very
much like Christ, what do we do? It
seems to me we have four general options which I want to just tick off. 1. We
can try to be Christian outside the church. It seems to me the New Testament
authorizes this. “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold,” Jesus
is quoted as saying in John 10:16. You can be Christian outside the church. The
only problem is that being Christian outside the church requires great
self-discipline. We are formed by the stories we live with. The job of the
church is to expose us to the story of Jesus in as many ways as possible – in
word, in song, in ritual, in mission, in community. You can immerse yourself
in Jesus Christ without the church but it takes almost a superhuman effort, sort
of like home schooling. 2. The
second option is that we can try to purify the church and return it to a
pre-institutional spirit. Every generation a group of Christians will
withdraw from the existing church to start a new movement that is modeled on the
New Testament church. The Church of Christ website says: “Members of the church of Christ
do not conceive of themselves as a new church started near the beginning of
the 19th century. Rather, the whole movement is designed to reproduce in
contemporary times the church originally established on Pentecost, A.D. 30.”[vi] The
Church of God website says: “It was 1886, in a crude meeting house on the
Tennessee-North Carolina border, where the Church of God traces its roots.
There, a group of eight sincere Christians had a deep desire for a closer
relationship and life with Christ. Realizing the futility of reforming their
own churches, they established a new church whose objective would be to
restore sound scriptural doctrines of the Bible, encourage deeper consecration
and promote evangelism and Christian service.”[vii] What
happens to all these movements? They become another denomination. They become
institutions. The only way to avoid this would be to set a time to go out of business.
If you were to say, we will start a new fellowship but we will close
ourselves down in 25 years, maybe you could avoid becoming an institution,
maybe. But it is the very nature of institutions to seek continuity and
permanence. So while these efforts to be non-church communities or
non-institutional churches may be helpful to those who are an early part of
the experiment, they inevitably fail. 3. A
third option is to be part of the church but to psychologically disassociate.
All of us disassociate in our lives to some degree. How many of us are in 100
percent harmony with the organizations we work for? Maybe if we own our own
business but probably not even then. There are things we disagree with, but
we just go along and don’t think about it too much. We get out of it what we
need and don’t worry much about the rest. The difficulty with this is that if
the disassociation goes too deep too long it is unhealthy and we lose our
selves. 4. A
fourth option is to be in the church as a reformer, a non-conformist, someone
constantly working to change the institution. The downside of this is that
you lose some of the benefits of religion. One of the benefits of religion is
this sense of connection, this sense of belonging, this sense of giving up
our individuality and being part of a larger whole. You lose some of that is
you are in the church as a non-conforming reformer. So
there is no easy answer. The
person who has helped with this more than anyone else lately is Kent Dodson
in a talk he gave at Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids last summer.[viii]
He asked a question I’d never heard asked exactly this way before. He asked
what Jesus’ relationship was to the institution of religion in his time and
place. How did Jesus deal with institutionalize Judaism. He carefully
recounted how the Gospels portray Jesus in his relationship to Judaism. They
tell about Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple, but they also say that
Jesus encouraged people to tithe to the Temple but warned that tithing was no
substitute for living justly. (Matt. 23: 23) Jesus attended synagogue and
taught there. He hangs out at the Temple. He allows himself to be called a
rabbi. He criticizes the temple tax but pays it. (Matt. 17: 24-27) Kent
Dobson’s conclusion is that Jesus places himself within the circle of
institutional Judaism but at the very edge. “The edge of the inside,” he
calls it. The
edge of the inside: I think this is where Foundry is within our
denominational institution. We are definitely inside the circle but we are at
the edge of the inside. I think
this is the kind of leaders local congregations need, including Foundry. You
know the greatest danger congregations face? Becoming a congregational
bubble. It is possible for congregations to become such loving, caring places
that we become a sort of bubble where everyone is caring and nice to one
another inside the bubble while the world outside the doors goes to hell –
the world God so loved. So a local congregation’s leaders need to be at the
edge of the inside. This is
where I think pastors need to be and bishops need to be. The
problem is that this is an uncomfortable place to be. It is much more
comfortable to be outside the church wiping the dust off of our feet,
self-righteously denouncing the hypocrites inside the church. Or it is more
comfortable to be all the way inside the church enjoying the sense of
connectedness and harmony conformity brings. Why would anyone want to be at
the edge of the inside where you make nobody happy? It is not a very religiously
satisfying place to be. So why
would any of us want to be there. I can think of only one reason, but it is a
pretty good one. The only reason I can think of that we would want to be at
the edge of the inside is because it is where Jesus is, and it is where we
will be if we want to be with Jesus. www.foundryumc.org |
|
|
|
|
|
|
