Evaluating Structure
The current landscape of theological reflection in the west hosts an increasing amount of hopeful analysis on the missional church. That is, the church reclaiming its identity as a people on mission. A common trend is to embrace organic formations of church, and I'm a participant in this move. There are a number of conversations that have demonstrated tension to some degree. On the one hand, a reclaimation of mission in the church has led to radical re-engineering of organizational structures. On the other hand, there are conversations that attempt to leave structure largely out of the analysis as a noble attempt to avoid being prescriptive about issues not central to the Gospel. I've also participated in this conversation insisting that the real need for the American church is "heart surgery." Structure is a an elusive subject. It doesn't feel as though it should be at the center of conversations about the Gospel, and I agree that it shouldn't. Yet, structures make an impact all their own.
In The Social Construction of Reality, Peter Berger describes institutionalism at the most primitive level as multiple persons committed to a repeating social pattern. For example, three guys meeting at a diner every Monday morning at 7AM for breakfast and prayer for the last two years could be considered an institution, at its most primitive level. Institutionalism is a human endeavor and to some degree unavoidable. Yes, structure is unavoidable and is actually welcome. Committing to repeating patterns and establishing social structures helps define purpse and influences behaviors. As a result, structure -- though not central to the Gospel -- will have an influence.
Stuctures that encourage participation will likely have an impact through practing new behaviors. It is likely that an environment where listening to the stories of peers will nurture compassion to a different degree than oration. Structures that are fluid are probably more likely to invite contextualization, and structures that are organic and participatory should create opportunity to put the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers into actual practice.
No, structure is not central; however, structure will have a profound impact on spirituality. We have more recently begun to recognize the need for structure to be contextualized based on the host culture. Furthermore, it is equally important to recognize the ways that structure influences spirituality, worldview, and behavior.
Evaluating structure raises a number of issues. How does a particular structure relate to the teachings of Jesus? For example, do we take Jesus seriously when He instructs his followers that they are not to rule over one another but to become servants, and how do rigid, hierarchical models relate to this? Does a particular structure represent cultural contextualizaton? What human behaviors are produced or encouraged by a particular structure? While church structures don't hold as central positions as incarnation, cross, resurrection, repentance of sin, and justice, they continue to be issues unwise to ignore.
May the Lord of creation give us wisdom.
In The Social Construction of Reality, Peter Berger describes institutionalism at the most primitive level as multiple persons committed to a repeating social pattern. For example, three guys meeting at a diner every Monday morning at 7AM for breakfast and prayer for the last two years could be considered an institution, at its most primitive level. Institutionalism is a human endeavor and to some degree unavoidable. Yes, structure is unavoidable and is actually welcome. Committing to repeating patterns and establishing social structures helps define purpse and influences behaviors. As a result, structure -- though not central to the Gospel -- will have an influence.
Stuctures that encourage participation will likely have an impact through practing new behaviors. It is likely that an environment where listening to the stories of peers will nurture compassion to a different degree than oration. Structures that are fluid are probably more likely to invite contextualization, and structures that are organic and participatory should create opportunity to put the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers into actual practice.
No, structure is not central; however, structure will have a profound impact on spirituality. We have more recently begun to recognize the need for structure to be contextualized based on the host culture. Furthermore, it is equally important to recognize the ways that structure influences spirituality, worldview, and behavior.
Evaluating structure raises a number of issues. How does a particular structure relate to the teachings of Jesus? For example, do we take Jesus seriously when He instructs his followers that they are not to rule over one another but to become servants, and how do rigid, hierarchical models relate to this? Does a particular structure represent cultural contextualizaton? What human behaviors are produced or encouraged by a particular structure? While church structures don't hold as central positions as incarnation, cross, resurrection, repentance of sin, and justice, they continue to be issues unwise to ignore.
May the Lord of creation give us wisdom.
posted by Jared | 12:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home