You ought to have seen me when I was in high school. Perhaps, someday when I’m healed up and less vain, I’ll post my graduation picture here (or maybe just when I stop being lazy and scan the dang photo).
Anyway, when I was in high school, my hair was styled 10 years out of date, shaped like a wavy sort of afro, and my nose was this huge thin triangle thing that was too big for my face. I was also skinny as a rail, so if I turned sideways, my protruding nose was approximately 80% of my profile. Oh, and starting my senior year, I wore a razor thin moustache that looked like I’d just drunk a glass of dirt. (Hey, it was the best I could do at the time.)
Today, a lot has changed. My moustache has morphed into a goatee, peppered with grey hair. I’m fighting to make sure I have enough hair on my head, rather than having too much. And my nose is the same shape, but actually fits my face now. But now, my body is too big for, um, my body. (Thankfully, I’m now finally starting to lose weight.)
I guess what I’m trying to say is that as an organic creature, I am constantly changing. My cells have a life cycle; they are dying and replenishing themselves over and over again, sometimes in places I wish they would not multiply. I’ve always been me, but I have completely different cells now than I did when I was seventeen. I have changed with time. I have been dynamic rather than static.
This is how organic creatures are: they grow, they change, they shift, they adapt to their surroundings. The object is not to remain the same forever, but to continue recycling throughout life.
So much of the discussion about organic versus institutional church these days hinges on the understanding that the church is an organism rather than an organization or an institution. The church is often referred to as the Body of Christ, and I think that is for a reason. Much of what I discuss here on this blog really boils down to how we view the church. At the same time, it’s become very chic to say, “The church isn’t an institution; the church is an organism.” Even people in the institutions are saying it. And it’s true, but when something is overstated, sometimes we underestimate the truth behind the statement and lose the meaning.
Think about what this means. Why is it soooo important that we see the church as an organism rather than an institution? Why make such a big deal about this?
Because organisms and institutions behave very differently from one another. And when we mistake one for the other, our priorities get screwed up. We start thinking certain things are important when they really aren’t.
Here’s the fundamental difference between the two. The goal of an institution is to remain structured, steadfast, fixed and unchanged for as long as possible. But the goal of an organism is to grow, multiply, and adapt–through a constant stream of changes and life cycles.
Here’s just one example of how this plays out. When we think like an institution, our priority in founding a church will be longevity. Sure, we want our church to grow, but even more than that–we want our church to last. Standing the test of time becomes the measure of success. Just like the post I wrote last year about the oldest church in Texas–even if our church winds up in the middle of a cemetery with more dead members than living ones, at least the institution is standing strong. An institution’s hallmark is the fact that it does not change over time.
But when we think like an organism, our priority in starting a fellowship will be to adapt to our environment, to grow and thrive and be the best we can be in that environment while retaining our uniqueness as an organism. Effectiveness and obedience to Christ our Head become the measures of our success. And because we know that organisms change over time and endure many life cycles without losing their identity, we won’t be so hung up on how long a particular expression of church will last. If we come to a place where we feel like that particular expression has run its course and is no longer effective–we will simply adapt, reinventing and retooling ourselves, as it were, for the next season.
Organisms don’t fear change; they thrive on it.
Can you see why it is so important that we make this shift in our thinking? Can you see why it’s so important that we not just say the church is an organism, but actually believe it, and live like it’s true?
The fact is, though we formed a lot of institutions over the centuries, the church never has been an institution. It’s just been an organism that thought it was an institution. In a day when change is happening faster and faster, it’s no wonder that our institutions are losing their clout in the world we live in. We will do much better in keeping pace, I think, if we begin to see ourselves again as an organism, thriving on change rather than resisting it.
That’s just my opinion, anyhow. All I can say is…I’m really glad I don’t still look like my graduation picture. I’m glad my nose fits my face now. Change is good.
Wayward Son
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.
View all posts by Wayward Son →
Great points Jeff. Organic growth of any type is never perfect and pristine. But at least it’s growth.
I read about a very organic DC church that began in the 1970’s. Here is a quote from the article.
“The Church of the Saviour was never a conventional church. It has no pews, no Sunday school, not even a Christmas service. Instead, for 60 years this small, unusual group based in Northwest Washington has quietly fueled a revolution in faith-based activism.
Thousands of people are served by dozens of organizations started by the church, part of the intense social justice work mandatory for members. One of its programs found jobs for 800 people last year. Another provided 325 units of affordable housing. There’s Columbia Road Health Services. Christ House medical services for the homeless. Miriam’s House for women with AIDS. And on and on.
But now the grass-roots orientation that has animated the church for decades might lead it to disband. The church always has favored small groups over large and has been wary of entrenched institutions.”
What I found interesting is at the end of the article we find that the church has been so organic that even the Gospel is not a necessary part of this organism.
Now obviously that is not your dream here brother… so let me ask. If the dream is an ever changing organism that, as you say “the goal of an organism is to grow, multiply, and adapt–through a constant stream of changes and life cycles.”
So if the goal is to be an ever-changing organism that embraces constant change over all else, how do you keep from becoming the church that embraces a “life-cycle” without the Gospel.
Mark, I agree. Organic growth can be messy and disorganized…something recovering institution people like me will have to deal with. 🙂
J.R.,
The answer to your question lies further down in my post:
“But when we think like an organism, our priority in starting a fellowship will be to adapt to our environment, to grow and thrive and be the best we can be in that environment while retaining our uniqueness as an organism.”
I didn’t say it outright in the post…but the Gospel is part of our uniqueness which we must retain. Without it, we might be organic, but we would not really be the church. As I said in my analogy…despite the changes in my physical appearance, I am still me. We don’t morph into something else; we adapt to our environment without losing our identity, our DNA. And that DNA is Christ and the Gospel.
That said…I can certainly understand how the word “goal” could have been misinterpreted in my post. When I said the goal of an organism is to adapt and change, I didn’t mean to say that change was the end-all-be-all goal of the church. I meant that, like an organism, the church will adapt. But this also assumes the organism is incapable of morphing into a different species. The things that Biblically identify us as the church cannot be compromised.
Hope that clears it up. Thanks! 🙂
Thanks brother. It is really cool that I read that article today and then your post.
So if I read you right, the goal is Jesus and change/adaptation/evolution is a byproduct of striving for that goal. If we live as a static structure, we will never reach the goal of and mission of Christ.
Is that a fair summary?
Hi Jeff : low whistle:
Looved this post, and not just because of the visual aid, although that helped contribute. 😉
The unpacking of the IC vs OC (he-he) is so messy, but you did a great job of helping decipher what can sometimes be a gray area. It also helped be in terms of how I have seen myself over the last year, in giving myself the freedom to be more organic instead of freaking out over the busting-out-of-the-solid *cough* rigid *cough* mold I had created. Thanks, friend!
J.R.,
Yes, overall, you have the gist. The goal of the church is Christ and His Kingdom. Perhaps method would have been a better word to use; the method of survival for an organism is change, while the method of survival for an institution is to remain the same. The point is that the church is *living*, and all living things change. Static things are dead things. So yes, I do believe we limit ourselves in the fulfillment of our purpose when we pattern ourselves after static structures.
I did scan the article, but I did not see specifically where it said the Gospel was absent from that church, or unneccessary to it. I might have just missed it. Is there a particular quote from it that led you to that conclusion?
Thanks again, J.R. Your questions always sharpen me.
Stacy,
Thanks for stopping in. I’m glad the post helped give some clarity. 🙂
Jeff,
Great post!! Indeed, the Church, His Great Family, we are organic…always have been. I love how you point this out, along with so many more incredibly excellent points about the differences between an institution and The Church, an organic group of people.
It’s funny, just today, I posted a blog about institutions/structures! Neat how this happens, often, with us siblings in the Blogosphere. The Holy Spirit speaking to many of our hearts about the same things.
P.S. Love the picture here of you…er…I mean Brad Pitt. Hee hee! Smiles 🙂
Blessings,
~Amy 🙂
Jeff,
My statement about the church is from the end of the article where it described their future as uncertain.
“Will the mission groups remain faith-driven, or will secular nonprofit people eventually take them over?”
Granted, I don’t know if this will happen, it just got me thinking about how easy it is for any church (organic or institutional) to lay aside the Gospel and put another goal or mission are the fore.