June 11, 2008 by

Mistaken Identity (part 2)

6 comments

Categories: changing mindsets, church

(First read Mistaken Identity part 1…okay, now you’re ready…)

In my last post I described how the church in general suffers from mistaken identity, because it is an organism that thinks and acts like an institution. I concluded by sharing that because there are those who are (in increasing numbers) drifting away from the institutions and acting more like an organism, this mistaken identity is now growing into an identity crisis, especially among institutional church leadership.

A good analogy of what I’m talking about is the hit show American Idol (or _____ Idol for whatever other country you might be in). Among the genuine talent that shows up, there are many who think they are singers that find a rude awakening by the judges. I realize some of that is sensationalized for TV, but it is truly a study of human nature to look at the different reactions from people when they are advised to find another career path: denial, anger, confusion, self-pity, and in some cases a total meltdown.

These are the symptoms of identity crisis. When someone thinks they are something they are not, and you say or do something that shines the light on the delusion, you are liable to get a whole range of emotional reactions. But there is one emotion that I believe is behind all the others, and that emotion is fear.

When I have had the opportunity (or maybe we should call it stupidity) to talk to some institutional church leaders about some of the stuff I’m processing here on this blog, I’ve gotten a range of reactions that is surprisingly like those of American Idol (well, perhaps a bit more dignified at times, but similar nonetheless). The responses have ranged from simple disagreement and defensiveness (read: denial) to questioning my salvation to outright hostility. But the look in their eyes gives away the bottom-line emotion. It’s fear. To put it bluntly–some of them are scared spitless.

So why the fear? For some church leaders, talk like this is dangerous because they can instantly draw the line to a loss of control of their flock, a loss of numbers, a loss of income, a loss of legitimacy, and ultimately a failure of the structure they have come to trust in. For others, it can be simply because when you see the church as an institution and people start leaving it, it looks like the future of the church itself is in jeopardy. In both cases–as in all cases of mistaken identity–the fear happens because identity is a foundational issue, and when challenged, it can call everything you’ve believed into question. That’s enough to rock anyone’s world.

Now…here’s the ironic truth behind the mistaken identity of the church, and why we don’t need to be afraid of the truth about our identity.

The Scriptures indicate (and history itself shows) that the church of Jesus Christ is indestructible. The church has survived and thrived through the centuries despite heresies, sin issues, politics and persecution. In fact, the more we are persecuted, the more we grow. Why? Because the church is an organism, and not just any organism: the church is an organism with the eternal life of God flowing through her. The church is the Body of Christ, and Jesus will never let the church be destroyed.

By contrast, history shows that institutions can be destroyed, and in fact are destroyed regularly. Every government, every empire that has risen and fallen, has been an institution. Corporations are institutions, and they fail all the time, both big and small (case in point: Enron). Institutions are temporal; the church is eternal. If you see the church as an institution, it is understandable to feel that the church is in danger of destruction; but if you see the church for what it is–an organism–you’ll realize that could never happen.

So here’s the truth: reclaiming our true identity as an organism might threaten the institution, but it will never put our future in doubt. We might have to re-think some things. Heck, we’re going to have to re-think quite a lot of things, and that’s already happening. But the church will survive and thrive much more as an organism than we ever could as an institution.

There is a shift occuring in the church, and I believe it is a foundational shift. More and more people are seeing the church as an organism, and seeking to live in that reality. In the interest of fairness, not all institutional leaders react as I described above. Some who have eyes to see are recognizing the shift and seeking God for ways to adapt. And there are others like Glenn, who resigned from the clergy of his own volition and is seeking a fresh expression of his gifts for a new season. But the shift is coming, nonetheless, and wisdom would dictate that we adapt rather than resist. For when you look at this change through the lens of an organism rather than an institution, a bigger picture begins to take shape. You see, this is not some neo-Marxist type of revolution against spiritual authority by the “lay people” (“True Jesus People around the world UNITE!”). No, I believe this is something God is doing, not to His church, but for her. He is freeing us from our mistaken identity. He is breaking off the institutional thinking that has enslaved us, in order to help us become what we were meant to be all along.

Musician. Composer. Recovering perfectionist. Minister-in-transition. Lover of puns. Hijacker of rock song references. Questioner of the status quo. I'm not really a rebel. Just a sincere Christ-follower with a thirst for significance that gets me into trouble. My quest has taken me over the fence of institutional Christianity. Here are some of my random thoughts along the way. Read along, join in the conversation. Just be nice.

6 Responses to Mistaken Identity (part 2)

  1. Lightbearer

    Jeff,

    I have seen that fear in the eyes of the institutional leadership. They really don’t like the ones that they can’t control. But, you are definitely correct when you say that Jesus will protect the organism but not the organization.

    I’m right in the middle of this shift and at the place where I’m trying to figure out what it really is suppose to look like. I have some ideas. But, above all I know that it is not suppose to look like the institution.

    Blessings,
    Gary

  2. Michael

    You said, “discovering alternative ways to express their faith in Christ.”

    While I agree with the thesis you present in parts I and II: the church is not an institution but an organism, and this organism will not fail, I am uncomfortable with the broad, vague brush strokes you use. The quote above shows the vagueness that has some people “nervous” about new movements. This nervousness is not all about holding on to institutionalism nor all about fear. Some are striving to hold the line doctrinally. I have seen alternative ways to express faith include things like house churches(which can be great correctives to the institution) but also things like saying that incorporating Buddhist beliefs and adding a bit of Hindu beliefs and mixing in some Native American mysticism is good for us. This is not an institution vs. organism issue; it is orthodoxy vs. heresy. You can have my building, my Sunday morning structure, and my programs, but I will stand up (and not out of fear) when the death of my Lord is said to be unnecessary and the resurrection is spiritualized away.

  3. Jeff McQ

    Aaroneous,
    Thanks, bro. I’ll take a look at the link.

    Gary,
    Thanks for chiming in. I, too, have some ideas of what this will look like. I think a key to this season is to hold things loosely as far as our methods go, simply because it is a place of transition.

    Katherine,
    🙂

    Michael,
    Thank you for the remarks, and the point is well made. Just to be clear, however…if you look at the overall direction of this blog beyond these two posts, you will see that my critiques of the institutional church are not about doctrine, but about method. (The operative word in the phrase you quoted is “WAYS” not “BELIEFS”.)A consistent theme throughout my ramblings here are that there are PRINCIPLES of Scripture, which do not change; and there are METHODS, which can and should change. The base problem with institutional Christianity that it has exalted its methods to the level of principle, thereby creating a religion God never intended.

    I have never, nor will I ever, condone a shifting from the essential Biblical doctrines of the Christian faith, nor do I approve of any form of syncretism with other faiths. That would be a compromise of PRINCIPLE, and that’s not what I’m talking about here. I hope this clarifies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.