What Is Organic Missionality?
During the Allelon evnet last week, one of the questions asked of Alan Roxburgh was about the difference between “organic” and “institutional” expressions of church or missionality. Alan quickly dismissed the distinction as a false dichotomy, stating that we have too quickly branded institutions as “bad”. While I think he missed the heart of what the question was asking (What say you, Greg?), Alan made some excellent points.
Many others were stirred by this portion of the conversation. My friend Paul, from the local Watershed community, had this to say:
A question I am left with after listening to the conversation involves Alan’s response to someone who was attempting to distinguish between “organicly directed” mission and “institutionally directed mission. Again the inadequacy of language rears it head – what I took as the question was how I move from “Spirit” determined expansion of the Kingdom rather than “strategic” self constructed marketing geared at conversion.
The answer that Alan suggested through his talk, but not necessarily in response to the questioner, was that as we share as individuals in faithful community we allow the Spirit to be a Go-Between ourselves and others in such a way as to lead to the awareness of Christ’s presence. Incidently this is not a conceptual process but an incarnational and spiritual one.
Alan’s direct answer to the questioner, overemphasized the definition of organic and institutional. Of course both aspects are in every situation and the Kingdom’s wind blows in Emergent and Missional and traditional settings but the deep conversation is definitely impeded by humanly constructed restrictions on how the Spirit operates. Hopefully more on this and other topics as the dialogue moves on.
I think Paul was perceptive in noting that language and definitions were impeding the actual question. While I agreed with what Alan shared- for I think we are taking a great risk in dismissing all forms of institution is respect to the church- I wish he had explored the issue more thoroughly. (Ironically, I think Alan got caught up in defintions shortly after he made it clear than such definitions are not very helfpul). Where I agreed with Alan was that we should not view the church in such binary terms- be it organic vs. institutional, emerging vs. traditional, etc. We have much to learn from each without limiting our understanding so narrowly.
That being said, I do believe there are significant implications in the distinction between organic and mechanistic worldviews, especially in how they inform our ecclessiology and missiology. While I won’t go into detail here, I believe the impact of the Industrial Revolution on the way we view and relate to the world around us has been significant and damaging. Our understanding of community, missionality, Scripture and even God drastically shift if we can relearn the more organic worldview into which we were created.
What do you think?
I have been part of an effort to be “non-institutional” for the past two years. Our “pastor” (which means: the one whose vision energized our beginning) kept talking about “organic”, and wanting to see what connections developed naturally. Our group is shifting now from being a “congregation” to being more of a “fellowship group”. (I don’t know how to describe what happens except with traditional terms.) And I have discovered that the lack of formal connection (institutional) really mattered to me. It seems to me that everything always develops along lines that exist inside of the people involved, which sounds organic, but is actually expressed as some kind of institution. I was with Al on this question. I can understand the distrust of “organizations” that I thought I heard in the questioner; but I need connections to the global church as much as (definitely not more than) I need the local (organic) community.
I’m not sure, Jamie, that my thoughts went in a direction that makes sense to you: that at least is an organic response! I expect to learn more from other responses to your post. Thanks for posting.
Daryl
Daryl,
Your thoughts make perfect sense. I largely agree with you, though I think there is a surprising phenomenon with many young Christians able to maintain those global connections with less formalized institutional forms.
That is why I came to the two conclusion I did above: first, that the distinction is between organic and mechanistic, as institution is a word for organization and such organization will always be necessary (even if it is organic); second, that organic is not THE answer to our missional/ecclesiological challenges, but simply one piece in a much larger, more complex reality.
Thanks for sharing!
Peace,
Jamie
One of the great lies of the 90′s was that organic was a preferred mode for most things social and community based. This lead us to the place where we waited for the ‘natural’ course to be taken. Unfortunately, we are not good at allowing organic to happen so we need to be intentional (not institutional, necessarily). The comment by Daryl seems to be an intentional organic response. I have been part of two different postmodern faith communities. The organic eventually focused on their own navels and the intentional carried water to the world.
Our community at Watershed would definitely like to see itself as a organic body but experience challenges that vision. No matter how casual or informal our teaching, worship, fellowship and social justice efforts, we in fact do, as all human groupings: plan, structure, strategize etc.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is not a question of deciding between organic or institutional communities but to allow the Holy Spirit to guide our growth and development. The Spirit softens institutional our human “agenda-setting” pride and strengthens organic spineless passivity.
For the most part our group has been a more navel gazing sort emphazing self knowledge, personal education and theological training. Opening ourselves to the Spirit has led us to slowly correct our course into a more fellowship, kingdom justice orientation – without neglecting what we have learned. Whatever path we follow hopefully will include a Spirit compelled balance between faithful listening and watchful guidance coupled with creative planning.
The sociological definitions of organic or institutional seem to set two servants gainst one another. This is usually done because of an overemphasis on one or the other which has wounded the body of Christ through defensiveness. Context and vocation as viewed through the Spirit’ freedom will determine what proportion of organic or institutional elements ought to be applied in each setting.
I’ll spell out a basic part of what I’m referring to in my desire for connection. I have lived in Zambia and Zimbabwe for 22 years or so, partly growing up and partly as an adult. Zimbabwe is in crisis, and our sisters and brothers there are under pressures that we can hardly imagine. One of the worldwide institutions to which my church there belongs has recently decided to send a group of about 15 people to Zimbabwe, simply to be with the church for a couple of weeks, representing all of us. There’s little insitutional agenda, but it takes an existing organization to act like this. A group of people from Winnipeg, without any institutional connections, could decide to go and visit and be with the people in Bulawayo. But how would the people there recognize us as representing the larger global church? I value the local connections my local group provides: I need these (organic) connections. I value also the global connections that tend to require more apparently mechanistic actions.
I’ve watched the arteries of denominations and institutions harden. I sympathize with wanting to create new wineskins. But I also value connection: locally and globally and with the past.
Paul,
Well said. I think that clearly demonstrates out of your experience as a community the dynamic tension of this issue. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
Daryl,
I agree with you, except insofar as you link the global connections to mechanistic actions. The institution your describe is like the institution of the family (as opposed, say, to the institution of business). It is a formal connection with defined roles, expectations and protocols. However, it is ultimately relationship that drives and binds this institution. In that sense, I believe that what you are describing is an organic institution working quite well.
Again, I make a distinction between institutions and mechanistic worldview. They do not mean the same thing to me. A mechanistic worldview view would seek to repair or replace that which was flawed to restore function. An organic worldview would seek to comfort and heal that which was wounded, as it sees the whole Body inseparable from itself.
Thanks for you personal sharing here. Very valuable.
Peace,
Jamie
I know that this comment goes a bit away from the previous ones, but the terms used (organic, institutional) got me thinking about labels and how we use them.
A difficulty with labels is that it requires an understanding of the definition of the label in order to use it effectively. Think about the labels “fundamentalist Christian” and “fundamentalist Muslim” that get used in the media. Quite possibly the most damaging labels in use right now.
When we as Christ’s church start to use labels on each other, we risk alienating and segmenting what should be a united, connected body.
So my question is – why use them at all?
Chris,
I agree that we can get lost in labels, but I also believe that we must be able to identify those things that keep us from establish Christ’s Kingdom. In this respect, used responsibly, labels are important to help understand and identify. I am not sure we could, functionally, abandon all labels without incapacitating ourselves. Then again, that could be the writer in me resisting the loss of words!
Peace,
Jamie
Chris, another group I’m part of has gone round and round on the use of labels, arguing both sides. I know Roxburgh told us we sometimes can’t define things (his way of avoiding labels?): but it would help me to understand your question if you tell me what you mean by “using labels on each other”. I agree that calling people fundamentalist Christian/Hindu/Muslim is damaging. It’s often a way to avoid really listening to the person. But I’m wondering what you’re thinking of more generally when you think of “using labels on each other”. Daryl
Not to belabor the terminology, but here’s my take on the organic vs. institutional debate. As I see it, the “institutional church” is pre-occupied with infinite growth (bigger is better) and eternal self-preservation (survival at all costs). Growth and self-preservation aren’t bad per se — they have their place in any organism. And if this is what it means to be “institutional” I agree with Roxburgh’s comment that everything becomes institutional in some way and that organic and institutional are not mutually exclusive terms.
However, the “institutional church” doesn’t know what to do with “Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” (John 12.24) The institutional church can’t embrace kenosis, and so long as it doesn’t it will fail to reproduce. We’ll have lots of “mega” (for a while), but very little “multi” and “micro”. Down the road, the church will be hard to find because a church that fails to die and reproduce isn’t organic … and it probably isn’t Christ-ian either.
My question to Alan focused more on leadership issues, particularly in regard to what he and his consulting colleagues call adaptive change. Here again, the “institutional church” has taken a myopic approach. It believes change is most effectively implemented top down. In other words, change is initiated and governed by the big brain. While this is not an inorganic idea per se, it doesn’t take into account that change/development/etc. is also a factor of DNA. A truly organic church pays attention to DNA. Neil Cole (author of Organic Church) specifies DNA as Divine truth, Nurturing relationships, and Apostolic mission. When these things exist in good measure, the church will grow and develop naturally according to its creator’s design. Yes, there’s still room for the big brain, but it might be good to remember that the big brain (the “head” of the church) isn’t us.
Greg,
Wow, excellent addition. I think you have more clearly articulated what you were getting at the other night. Thanks for weighing in.
Peace,
Jamie
Daryl,
It’s just personal experience. Expecially when people ask what church I attend – the first thing that gets attached to me is the “label” that is associated from that person’s perspective. I can tell you right now, I am not the “model” attender of the church I have chosen to attend regularily. I don’t consider that a bad thing, but people are surprised for some silly reason, particularily when I do something they think I shouldn’t.
It’s also inaccurate. For example, I have met people from United Churches that are more evangelical than most “Evangelical” churches. The use of general, blanket labels is at best useless, and misleading.
I don’t know if I can explain my thoughts clearly on this. I just consider it counter-productive to label people, just so we can quickly define what they stand for or think. It is more respectful to spend time with them and attempt to understand them on a deeper level.
What this has to do with the discussion you were on (Discussing the institutional and organic churches) I’m not sure, but read Greg’s comment – he uses the lebels in such a way that he blasts the “traditional” churches and paints them all with an extremely wide brush. If this is how we are going to use labels in our discussions with each other, how are they edifying? How do they build up each other?
I also find it “interesting” (It’s my favourite word in the classroom) that the traditional churches, some with over 1000+ years of history and experience in ministry and personal relations, are being told that they don’t understand people.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
There is some truth to this….
THanks for the further thought, Chris. My own take on “labels” has been that they are useful for giving an idea of where somebody comes from, but not helpful for actually knwoing the person. The same is true, I think, for whole churches. I am “Mennonite” and “Brethren in Christ” (you may have to google the latter). In some ways I’m quite typical; in others not at all.
I still need to hear a lot more of the conversation to know what Greg (and others) mean by organic and institution: not that they hve been unclear, but that understanding does not happen quickly — even (especially?) online. So far as historic churches go: some of us have been connecting with liturgies and practices that our grandparents left behind. Taize worship (St. Benedict’s north of the city: first Friday, October to May) for example.
I’ll keep listening: for similarities and differences of understanding and for learning more about what it means to be the church. Thanks Christ. And thanks Jamie and all who are participating in the conversation.
I think that labels, like most things, can and have been used irresponsibly. As a result, they have often been used to pigeon-hole people, frequently for the purposes of inclusion or exclusion. This is a problem needing to be addressed.
That being said, we risk an opposite danger in abandoning language and/or taxonomy. Look at it this way: even the Body of Christ- the Church- is described by Paul in terms of very different parts, all one as a whole, but necessarily identified and honoured in their differences.
These are not labels to definitively capture our identities, but rather helpful distinctions that require of us a humility and grace as we seek to understand and relate together. Does that make sense?
I think that the organic church ideas are more about ecclesiology than theology (while there is obvious and inevitable cross-over). Specifically, it speaks to the deeper beliefs and presuppositions that shape the way we form as communities of faith, whether we are conscious of them or not. It aims to be more aware and intentional about drawing our ecclesial formation from the patterns of Creation, often citing organic references in Scripture as examples (i.e. vine & branches, Body of Christ, sheep & shepherd, etc.)
Many Christians are largely unaware of how deeply our worldview defines our spiritual and missional formation. One example I mentioned earlier is the Industrial Revolution (which in turn developed out of a specific worldview), which has led us to look at the world (be it science, business, community, government, faith, etc.) as though we are looking at a machine. If we can understand the small interconnected pieces (achieved through the dismantling of the machine), we can understand the whole. With a car, for example, this might be true. With a child, this approach would glean a great deal of biological, anatomical facts, but it would not even come near to understanding the child, leaving it dead and butchered as a result.
Bringing this back to labels, in a mechanistic system, labels can define parts, systems and whole unit with ease- muffler, transmission, car. Organically, we can still define parts helpfully, but they are so dis-integrated that they can be studied independent of the other parts or the whole. So this does not negate labels, but challenges the guiding worldview and intentions behind their use.
Ok, this is already too long.
Peace,
Jamie