The difference, in my mind, of the institution and the culture of the institution is that which is superfluous to the institution is culture. That which is negotiable, trendy, reaction to an event, political, academic, etc. is more about the culture than the work of the institution. The work of the institution, the people of the institution, the clearly stated goals and mission of the institution are not the issue right now for me. It is the culture.
The issue I have right now is that many are holding fast and defending the culture, while the mission is suffering and not operating at a level of much success. The mission is not to bring people to the mission, it is to bring the mission to the people which in turns brings people to be a part of the mission. The Ten Commandments on the courthouse steps are culture. Music, books, christian paraphernalia, concerts, worship services, etc. are more about the culture than the mission.
We tend to talk a lot about injustice yet do we bring justice to those being unjustly treated? What are we teaching the next generation but culture? Do we equip or entertain? Do we broaden their understanding or do we create petri dishes of prejudice and narrow mindedness in the name of preserving the gospel. Last time I looked the gate of hell will not prevail. Are we so afraid of that that we continue to cast out any sin in order to save the institution. We don't discuss that which if not addressed in the youth will bring about devastation to the adult.
Has the institution forgot the mission in order to survive in the culture? Do we really think a t-shirt a, a tattoo, or an earring will send a kid to hell or will we begin to see that the kid is beginning to ask is heaven relevant to a culture which sublets rooms to hell. Do we wait for the next Stott, McLaren, Maxell, or Peterson book to define our institution or do we rely on the Holy Spirit to move and define in each one of us what the Kingdom has come to do? When we pray, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done..." are asking it to be done to us or through us? When do we realize that the bread and wine in the communion is really the flesh and blood of Christ which we participate in that it becomes our flesh and blood. The argument isn't does it become the flesh and blood in our stomachs but does it become the flesh and blood of Christ on our hands, words, wallets, feet, etc..
The institution doesn't need to be relevant to the culture, it needs to be relevant to the Kingdom...
1 comment:
"The mission is not to bring people to the mission, it is to bring the mission to the people which in turns brings people to be a part of the mission."
I agree with this, and it is an essential point to calling an institution back to its purpose.
In the rest of your points, you seem to be describing a lack of authenticity. This describes your disappointment with the church. Can we shift from criticism to construction? In my study of the Emerging Church, a critical shift in their development was from deconstruction and cynicism to positively building a new vision. Can you describe the vision of what we should be without using what we have been to make a contrast?
One other comment, "Do we wait for the next Stott, McLaren, Maxell, or Peterson book to define our institution or do we rely on the Holy Spirit to move and define in each one of us what the Kingdom has come to do?"
You seem to be asking each of us to follow the personal leading of the Holy Spirit through personal revelation. In my experience, many, even most, sincere and devout Christians have difficulty definitively hearing the Holy Spirit's leading on a regular basis. I believe you have an unusually large capacity to be certain of what the Holy Spirit is revealing to you and leading you to do. Others, I believe, feel they need to rely on means outside of their own experience of the Spirit to discern God leading through through their community, church tradition, reading and study of scripture, etc.
Post a Comment