|
As we clarify the differences between institutions and movements we must acknowledge that churches are and must be institutions.1 But they must also be movements. As we have seen over the centuries, churches can meet doctrinal and institutional standards and still lack effectiveness in propagating the faith in their society. At this point, it is natural to ask, “Is there biblical warrant for being attentive to this distinction and balance between institution and movement?” I believe there is. The Scriptures envision churches that are both organism and organization — or, to put it simply, churches that are organized organisms.
The book of Acts describes the life of the church in organic language. Several times we are told that the church or the number of disciples increased, grew, or spread (4:4; 6:1, 7; 9:31; 16:5). We are also told that the Word of God spread, increased, or grew (6:7; 12:24; 19:20). Acts 19:20 speaks of the Word growing in power, as if the Word of God, the gospel of Christ, has a life and power of its own (cf. Rom 1:16 – 17). Paul speaks of the gospel continually “bearing fruit and growing” (Col 1:6).
The church grows, but it does not grow as other human organizations do — as a business, a sports league, a government agency, or even a viral online movement would grow. The church increases in numbers because the Word of God grows when it reaches listeners in the power of the Spirit (cf. Acts 10 – 11). This biblical language suggests there is an organic, self-propagating, dynamic power operating within the church. In Acts, we see it working essentially on its own, with little institutional support or embodiment — without strategic plans or the command and control of managers and other leaders.
And yet, even though this power operates spontaneously, we see that when the Word of God produces a new church, Paul is always careful to appoint elders — leaders with authority — in every town before leaving it (cf. Acts 14:23). We may be inclined to wonder, “How was Paul able to discern so quickly those with leadership ability among the brand-new converts? Wouldn’t it have been better to let the new body of believers grow for a couple of years — just meeting together to study and to love and serve each other — before imposing an authority structure on them?” Paul’s behavior indicates just how important it was for these dynamic, spontaneously growing churches to have an authority structure as a way of ensuring that members would embody the church’s apostolically inherited teaching and purpose.
From the beginning, the church was both an institution and a movement. This dual nature of the church is grounded in the work of the Spirit, and it is the Spirit who makes the church simultaneously a vital organism and a structured organization.2 One helpful way of understanding this balance is to look at the way the ministry of Jesus is carried out in the church in a general sense through every believer, as well as through specialized roles — a distinction commonly referred to as the general and special office.
The General and the Special Office
Jesus Christ has all the powers and functions of ministry in himself. He has a prophetic ministry, speaking the truth and applying it to men and women on behalf of God. Jesus was the ultimate prophet, for he revealed most clearly (both in his words and his life) God’s character, saving purposes, and will for our lives. Jesus also has a priestly ministry. While a prophet is an advocate for God before people, a priest is an advocate for the people before God’s presence, ministering with mercy and sympathy. Jesus was the ultimate priest, for he stood in our place and sacrificially bore our burdens and sin, and he now brings us into God’s presence. Finally, Jesus has a kingly ministry. He is the ultimate king, ordering the life of his people through his revealed law.
The General Office of Believers
Every believer, through the Holy Spirit, is to minister to others in these three ways as well.
1. The Bible refers to every believer as a prophet. In Numbers 11:29, Moses states, “I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets,” and in Joel 2:28 – 29, this blessing is predicted for the messianic age. In Acts 2:16 – 21, Peter declares that in the church this prophecy is now fulfilled. Every believer is led by the Holy Spirit to discern the truth (1 John 2:20, 27). Each believer is directed to admonish with the word of Christ (Col 3:16), as well as to instruct (Rom 15:14) and encourage other believers (Heb 3:13). Christians are also called to witness to the truth before their nonbelieving friends and neighbors. In Acts 8:4, all of the Christians “who had been scattered” out of Jerusalem “preached the word wherever they went.” In 1 Thessalonians 1:8, Paul states that “the Lord’s message rang out” from the new converts all over Macedonia and Achaia. Paul exhorted the Corinthian Christians to imitate him in conducting all aspects of life in such a way that people come to salvation (1 Cor 9:19 – 23; 10:31 – 11:1). In Colossians 4:5 – 6, Paul tells all Christians to answer every nonbeliever with wisdom and grace, and in 1 Peter 3:15, Peter charges all believers to give cogent reasons for their faith to non-Christians. Behind all these exhortations is the assumption that the message of Christ is dwelling richly in every Christian (Col 3:16). It means that every believer must read, ponder, and love the Word of God, be able to interpret it properly, and be skillful in applying it to their own questions and needs and to those of the people around them.
2. The Bible calls every believer a priest — “You are . . . a royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:9). Just as every believer is a prophet, understanding the Word of God now that Jesus has come, so every believer is a priest, having access in the name of Christ, the great High Priest, to the presence of God (Heb 4:14 – 16). Believers, then, have the priestly work of daily offering themselves as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1 – 2) and of offering the sacrifices of deeds of mercy and adoring worship to God (Heb 13:15 – 16). The priesthood of all believers means not only that all are now active participants in joyful public worship (1 Cor 14:26), but also that they have the priestly calling “to do good and to share with others” (Heb 13:16). As prophets, Christians call neighbors to repent, but as priests they do so with sympathy and loving service to address their needs. This is why Jesus calls us to live such lives of goodness and service that outsiders will glorify God (Matt 5:16).3
3. The Bible calls every believer a king. All believers rule and reign with Christ (Eph 2:6) as kings and priests (Rev 1:5 – 6). Although elders and leaders have the responsibility of church governance and discipline, the “kingship of all believers” means that believers have the right and responsibility to discipline one another. Christians are supposed to confess their sins not only to a minister but to one another, and they are called to pray for one another (Jas 5:16). They are not to rely only on the discipline of elders but are to exhort each other so they don’t become hardened by their sin (Heb 3:13). It is the responsibility of not only elders and ministers to discern sound doctrine; all believers must rely on the anointing the Spirit gives them to discern truth (1 John 2:20, 27). The kingly general office is one of the reasons that many denominations have historically given the congregation the right to select its own leaders and officers, with the approval of the existing leaders (Acts 6:1 – 6). In other words, the power of governing the church rests in the people. Though pastors and teachers are uniquely called to build up the body into spiritual maturity (Eph 4:11 – 13), every Christian is called to help build up the body into maturity by “speaking the truth in love” to one another (Eph 4:15). The kingship of every believer also means that every believer has the authority to fight and defeat the world, the flesh, and the devil (cf. Eph 6:11 – 18; Jas 4:7; 1 John 2:27; 4:4; 5:4).
All of these facets of ministry are brought together in 1 Peter 2:9. Here we are told that followers of Christ have been made kings and priests — “a royal priesthood” — that we “may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness,” which is the work of a prophet. The Spirit equips every believer to be a prophet who brings the truth, a priest who sympathetically serves, and a king who calls others into accountable love — even if he or she lacks specialized gifts for office or full-time ministry. This Spirit-equipped calling and gifting of every believer to be a prophet, priest, and king has been called the “general office.” This understanding of the general office helps prevent the church from becoming a top-down, conservative, innovation-allergic bureaucracy. It helps us understand the church as an energetic grassroots movement that produces life-changing and world-changing ministry — all without dependence on the control and planning of a hierarchy of leaders.
The Special Office of Minister
The Spirit gives every Christian believer spiritual gifts for ministry (1 Cor 12 – 14) so that service to Christ will constantly arise out of the grassroots of the church. Yet the Spirit also gives gifts and creates “special offices” — roles that carry out a ministry within the church — that sometimes entail authority. The very same Spirit who generates the spontaneous, explosive ministry and growth is also the giver of the gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and pastor/teacher (Eph 4:11), as well as of governance (Rom 12:8). To be exercised, these gifts must be publicly recognized by the congregation, which requires some kind of organization. There is no way to exercise the gift of governing (Rom 12:8) unless we have an institutional structure — elections, bylaws, ordination, and standards for accreditation. No one can govern without some level of agreement by the whole church about what powers are given to the governors and how these powers are legitimately exercised. So the growth and flourishing of spontaneous ministry depends on some institutional elements being in place.
The special office represents the way Jesus orders and governs his church by the Spirit. Jesus commissions the leaders of the church by assigning them gifts, and so when we select our church’s leaders, we are simply recognizing the calling and gifts of the Lord. The distinctive blueprint for your church — the pattern of ministries God desires it to have — is shaped by the gifts assigned to the leaders and members by Jesus himself. Why are some churches particularly effective in reaching some kinds of people more than others? God has given them a particular pattern of gifts and therefore a particular pattern of ministry.
The special office means that the Spirit chooses some people to be leaders and pacesetters for all aspects of the general office. While all Christians should teach and evangelize, the Spirit calls some to be teachers and evangelists (Eph 4:11). All believers should share what they have with the needy, yet the church calls some leaders to be deacons and lead in the ministry of mercy (Acts 6:1 – 6; 1 Tim 3:8 – 13). All Christians should watch over one another and call one another to account (Gal 6:1 – 2; Heb 3:13), and yet every congregation is to have “elders” (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) who will look after the people as shepherds care for their sheep (Acts 20:28 – 31; 1 Pet 5:1 – 4). Believers are to submit to the authority of their leaders (1 Thess 5:12; Heb 13:7, 17). When these leaders exercise their gifts, they are also exercising Christ’s ministry.
Churches that are solidly grounded in their historical tradition normally have a strong bias for the importance of the special office. They must actively seek to cultivate a greater appreciation for the dynamic and fluid nature of the general office. One way to do this is through the commissioning of unordained lay leaders and staff— men and women working alongside traditional ordained leaders. In this way, churches can honor both the dynamic and organizing work of the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit, then, makes the church both an organism and an organization — a cauldron of spontaneously generated spiritual life and ministry, as well as an ordered, structured community with rules and authority. If God only gave gifts to all believers and did not call anyone into a place of authority, the church would be only an organic, spontaneous movement with virtually no institutional structure. If he only gave gifts to “special officers” — ordained ministers — then the church would be exclusively a top-down, command-and-control institution. But God’s Spirit creates both the general and the special office — and so we speak of the ardor of the Spirit (creating the movement) and the order of the Spirit (creating the institution). This dynamic balance of the Spirit’s work is what makes the church (in human terms) sustainable.
We see these dynamics vividly come together in 1 Peter 2:4 – 5, where Peter describes Christians as “living stones” in a new temple. Stones in a building represent a nonorganic metaphor. But Peter tells us that the stones of this temple are alive, and so the temple does, indeed, “grow” (see Eph 2:21). This suggests we should understand the church to be both an organism (which grows naturally) and an organization (which is structured and ordered).
It is vital to recognize the Holy Spirit as the author of both aspects of the nature of the church. Sometimes the ministries that directly produce converts and visibly changed lives (e.g., evangelism, worship, preaching) are seen as more spiritual than ministries of administration and ongoing programs (e.g., governance structures, church discipline, church management, rules of operation, membership assimilation programs, finance, stewardship, building maintenance, and so on). This is an understandable error.4 Centuries of experience have taught us that it is very difficult to keep order and ardor together. The proponents of order tend to see only the advantages of stable institutions and only the disadvantages of spontaneous movements. They see pride and arrogance in radical new movements and dismiss them as unstable, shortsighted, and self-important. Often they are right, but just as often they are wrong. On the other hand, the proponents of more dynamic, less hierarchical movements tend to see only the disadvantages of institutions. They see self-interest, rigid bureaucracy, and idolatry, and dismiss the institutions as dead or dying. Sometimes they are right, but just as often they, too, are wrong. The church, at its healthiest, is both organized and organic. Because the author of both aspects is the Holy Spirit, they must be able to exist in harmony with one another.
Movement Dynamics in the Local Church
In the previous chapter, we identified four key characteristics of a movement: vision, sacrifice, flexibility with unity, and spontaneity. What does it look like when these characteristics are present in individual churches and ministries? How do we encourage movement dynamics in the local church that are biblically balanced with institutional dynamics?
The Vision and Beliefs Create Oneness
A church with movement dynamics is driven by a clear vision for a particular future reality based on common beliefs. Vision is a set of strong beliefs animating a concrete picture of a future. So, for example, one compelling vision could be to increase the number of evangelical churches in a city tenfold within a generation. (A vision of this magnitude may seem outrageous in the United States, but it is quite possible in Western Europe, for example.) The concrete picture in this case is the tenfold increase, a picture of what the city would look like with an enlarged church in its midst within the span of a generation. This vision is wedded to strong beliefs — the classic evangelical gospel of the revivals and the Reformation.
Contextualization bears heavily on the communication of a church’s vision. A compellingly articulated church vision is, in reality, a contextualized way of expressing the biblical teaching about the gospel and the work of the church. For example, a church may say that its vision is to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” and then spell out clearly what this means. This vision expresses the biblical call to the people of God in Jeremiah 29 and Romans 12. Another church may express its vision as “changing lives with the gospel” and then clearly and attractively describe what this changed life looks like. This vision expresses the biblical call to the church to make disciples with the power of the Word and Spirit. Each of these vision statements, though they emphasize different aspects of the biblical call, will be galvanizing if they are stated in ways that are clear and persuasive to people of a particular culture.
Devotion to God’s Kingdom over Self or Tribe Enables Sacrifice
People in a church with movement dynamics put the vision ahead of their own interests and needs. What matters to the members and staff is not their own individual interests, power, and perks, but the fulfillment of the vision. They want to see it realized through them, and this satisfaction is their main compensation. The willingness to sacrifice on the part of workers and members is perhaps the key practical index of whether you have become a movement or have become institutionalized. Members of a church with movement dynamics tend to be more self-motivated and need less direct oversight. They are self-starters.
How does this happen? Selfless devotion is not something that leaders can create — indeed it would be dangerous emotional manipulation to try to bring this about directly. Only leaders who have the vision and devotion can kindle this sacrificial spirit in others. A dynamic Christian movement convinces its people — truthfully — that they are participating in God’s redemptive plan in a profoundly important and practical way. Participants say things like, “I’ve never felt more useful to the Lord and to others.” Church meetings in movement-oriented churches feel deeply spiritual. There is much more “majoring in the majors” — the cross, the Spirit, the grace of Jesus. People spend more time in worship and prayer.
Emphasis on Unity Creates Cooperation across Lines
Openness to cooperation is another essential movement dynamic. Because members of the movement are deeply concerned with seeing the vision accomplished, they are willing to work with people who are also materially committed to the vision and share primary beliefs but who differ in preferences, temperaments, and secondary beliefs or are members of other organizations. Because institutions are more focused on protocol and rules than on results and outcomes, their members tend to look askance at groups or people who don’t do things in the same way. In the Christian world, this means Christian groups with movement dynamics are more willing to work across denominational and organizational lines to achieve common goals.
Movement-oriented churches think more about reaching the city, while institutionalized churches put emphasis on growing their church’s particular expression or denomination. In general, leaders of churches with movement dynamics have a high tolerance for ambiguity and organizational messiness. What matters is that people hear the gospel and are converted and discipled, which results in cooperation with people from outside their own membership and involves learning from them.
As always, balance is crucial. A sectarian, highly institutionalized church or agency may refuse to cooperate with bodies that don’t share all its beliefs, including secondary and tertiary ones. We rightly criticize this posture as being antithetical to movements. But so is the opposite posture. It is important to be doctrinally vigilant and willing, when necessary, to respectfully contend for important theological truths when we believe that ministry partners are losing their grasp on those truths. A cowardly refusal to speak the truth in love is neither cooperative nor loving. The critical truths that ministry partners must hold in common should be clearly stated, and if there is movement away from them, there should be straightforward conversation about it. But how do we talk about doctrinal differences in a way that is not unnecessarily destructive to unity?
Spontaneity without Top-Down Command Enables Growth
A church or organization with movement dynamics has spiritual spontaneity; it constantly generates new ideas, leaders, and initiatives within and across itself — not solely from the top or from a command center outside of itself. As we noted, spontaneous combustion means ignition from within, not from outside. A church or organization that is highly institutionalized, however, is structured so that individuals cannot offer ideas and propose projects unless asked or given permission. A church with movement dynamics, however, generates ideas, leaders, and initiatives from the grassroots. Ideas come less from formal strategic meetings and more from off-line conversations among friends. Since the motivation for the work is not so much about compensation and self-interest as about a shared willingness to sacrifice for the infectious vision, such churches naturally create friendships among members and staff. These friendships become mini-engines powering the church, along with the more formal, organized meetings and events.
Another aspect of the spontaneity dynamic is the natural growth in leadership. This doesn’t mean a church should not have formal training programs. Rather, it means (1) that the vision of the movement (especially as its content is disseminated) attracts people with leadership potential and (2) that the work of the movement naturally reveals emerging leaders through real-life experience and prepares them for the next level of leadership in the movement. An example is Reformed University Fellowship, a campus ministry of the Presbyterian Church in America. RUF recruits recent college graduates to be campus interns, many of whom go on to become full-time campus staff.5 Working on college campuses trains workers to be evangelistic, to work with the emerging edge of culture, and to do ministry through fluid, nonformal processes. All of this makes campus ministers who leave the RUF staff more comfortable planting new churches than merely taking positions in established ones. As a result, RUF has created a continual flow of dynamic, fruitful church planters and young laypeople (former Christian university students) who are excellent core-group members for new congregations.
RUF is typical of dynamic movements in that it was not originally founded to produce church planters; the powerful “church planter formation” dynamic happened spontaneously, as the natural fruit of an excellent campus ministry. Most denominations, of course, create institutionalized agencies to recruit and train church planters, but organic leadership development pipelines such as RUF are often more productive. When a denomination experiences these gifts from God, it should recognize them and do what it can to support and enhance the experience without strangling it. Many churches are so institutionalized in their thinking that it makes it difficult to do so.6
Creative Tension
Scripture suggests that churches cannot choose between being a movement or an institution; they must be both. And yet in this book we are emphasizing movement dynamics over institutional ones. Why? Because over time, movements inevitably become institutions. Therefore, it is necessary for churches to intentionally cultivate the dynamics that characterize a healthy movement.
This process is difficult not only because movement dynamics push against organizational inertia but also because the movement dynamics themselves can be in tension with one another. Consider two movement dynamics we have identified: vision and spontaneity. On one hand, if everyone gets to define the vision according to what seems correct in their own eyes (Judg 17:6; 21:25), the movement falls apart. The vision and beliefs are the glue that must be guarded and rearticulated. They can evolve and be sharpened, but usually only gradually and by the top leaders. They must be codified and committed to media, and leaders must subscribe to them in some way. So the need for unity almost always pushes a movement toward structure in this area. The spontaneity dynamic, however, means new initiatives and creative ideas — aligned with and in pursuit of the vision — must emerge from everywhere. Making people wait a long time for “orders from headquarters” only suppresses their contributions, and much of the movement energy is lost. This spontaneity dynamic tends to get suppressed as the organization becomes more formal and codified.
The pursuit of unity and spontaneity will inevitably lead to change as the movement grows in size. If a church has four elders, then most decision making will take on a flat, collaborative shape. Elders have a lot of time to discuss issues and come to consensus. But what happens when the church grows and now has a team of twenty elders? The meetings become interminable, and reaching consensus can take months. It is only natural, then, for the church to designate groups of elders that make decisions to be routinely approved by the entire elder board. This looks suspiciously like a committee structure, which many (especially authors of Christian movement literature) believe is an unhealthy form of institutionalization. But from another perspective it can be seen as a form of trust, motivated by a desire to avoid controlling everything from the center. So delegation can be more of a movement dynamic than a sign of institutionalization.
How difficult it is to maintain this dynamic balance! Churches, laypersons, and ministers regularly have bad experiences in imbalanced churches and in response flee to the opposite extreme — an equally unbalanced form of ministry. When a lay-driven ministry goes off the rails, its victims tend to move toward a much more authoritarian, tightly controlled ministry. Meanwhile, refugees from “top-down” churches often rush to the opposite kind of church. Each kind of imbalance chokes the movement-ness of the church.
On the surface, the description of the church as a movement seems far more attractive than the description that focuses on the institutional aspects of a church and its ministry. In movements, the structure clearly serves the cause, whereas in institutions, the cause tends to serve the structure. And ultimately, this is how it should be. Some church or ministry structures are directly biblical (and therefore nonnegotiable), but most are humanly made (and therefore negotiable). The Bible instructs churches to have elders, for example, but it says virtually nothing about how this team is to be organized. A key to navigating the creative tension of Scripture is to avoid allowing humanly made structures to become idols — relative, finite things elevated to the status of unquestioned divine authority.
For a movement to stay a movement, then, it needs to achieve and maintain balance as an “organized organism.” On the continuum below, a movement-driven church would need to have its X toward the right. Since churches always migrate toward institutionalism, they often must be brought back toward a movement dynamic.
A practical key to maintaining an organized organism is experiencing a season of renewal in the church or organization that parallels the way an individual person is spiritually renewed. There must be times for what the Bible calls “covenant renewal.” Israel was brought into its original covenant relationship with God at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 – 20, and the nation was formed as God’s people and called to live in a particular way in the world. Whenever Israel faced a major new chapter in their journey, however, they were led through a season of covenant renewal — in Joshua 24, before they entered the promised land; in 1 Samuel 12, before they received a king; and in Nehemiah 8 – 9, as they returned from the Babylonian exile. These times of covenant renewal always had three parts: (1) the people returned to biblical texts in order to remember the things God had called them to do and be; (2) they looked forward to the next chapter, to the new challenges facing them; and (3) they rededicated their lives and resources to God for the next stage of the journey. This renewal must happen frequently in any church for it to remain an organized organism. It also prepares the church to be an active and generous participant in the movement dynamics in its city.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Describe the difference between the general office and the special office. What are the three aspects of ministry that belong to every believer as part of the general office? What are some of the functions and roles given to the special office? How does the distinction between these two help you to better strike the balance between the church as a vital organism and a structured organization?
2. Keller writes, “The willingness to sacrifice on the part of workers and members is perhaps the key practical index of whether you have a movement or have become institutionalized.” Take a moment to check the temperature of your volunteer culture. Look at the faces in your church directory and ask how aggressively they are sacrificing. Is the answer indicative of a movement or have you become institutionalized? How might this relate to the vision of your church, or the lack of vision?
3. Keller writes, “Churches, laypersons, and ministers regularly have bad experiences in imbalanced churches and in response flee to the opposite extreme.” Are there any conflicts or dysfunctions in your church that you now understand better in light of this statement?