H R Niebuhr suggests the following contrasts between movements and institutions with regard to the church.
INSTITUTION
Conservative
Passive and yielding to external influences
Looks to the past
Anxious
Guards boundaries
MOVEMENT
Progressive
Active, influencing rather than influenced
Looks to the future
Risk-taking
Crosses boundaries
Comments
11 responses to “institution or movement?”
For the most part, that’s probably right. Interesting question? I could imagine some churches on the “institutional” side being future-looking, progressive. I could also imagine “movements” that are moving people toward the past, toward boundaries.
Again… probably usually correct… I just don’t like to categorize things too strictly.
How long does it take for a movement to become an institution? Is it possible to maintain the momentum of a movement so it never becomes mired in institutionalism?
i share the spirit of the questions presented by both allen and todd. i have never been convinced by similar Niehburian dichotomies concerning the church.
here’s what i mean, as short as i can get it: it should be clear that the church’s allegiance is Other than the world which lives in rejection of Jesus’ lordship, yes, but there is no question in my mind that Niehbur’s over-simplified-black-and-white categories fail to do justice to the beautifully diverse language regarding the nature of the church (wow, that was a long sentence).
i also have large problems with Niehbur’s presuppositions with regards in regards to the way his historical context erroneously influenced his hermeneutic. when i have read Niebhur it sometimes seems like he is establishes philosophical categories which provide his interpretive framework, and once he has interpreted the scriptures through his own structure, he later calls it theology.
this sort of discussion is really popular right now among certain circles, and i think that trying to put the church of History and the scriptures (which, i know, are supposed to be the same thing) in these sorts of categories instead fails to accomplish much more than finger-pointing and name-calling. both Scriptures and tradition serve to inform us what the church should be, was, and is. it is our call to remain faithful to revelation and in my perspective i don’t see such a sharp divide between “movement” and “institutionalism.” in a way, i think a lot of this goes back to the “culture/church,” “of/not of this world” of “flesh/spirit,” “works/grace” “law/liberty,” etc. we must be careful about establishing/accepting strict oppositions like this because i think this often reflects a more Greek/Western worldview than a Hebrew/Christian one. what are your thoughts?
i highly recommend Stanley Hauerwas/William Willimon’s Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony for further statements on how the Church is to see itself in terms of social activism, and what it means to be as an incarnational, Spirit-empowered-community-on-mission.
I think that in order for an instution to remain an institution it must be those things, and the same for a movement. Maybe I’m over simplifying…but I’m also not applying it to churches.
So, I put what I hope is a thought provoking question on my site based on something I overheard at work. Would love to hear your opinion.
stream of consciousness responses:
interesting that the opposite of ‘conservative’ is ‘progressive’…. I think any healthy church has to be looking both to the past and future; not mired in the past, but not ignoring it….similarly, I think ‘guarding’ and ‘crossing’ boundaries are both necessary, as would be a whole discussion on what kinds of boundaries we’re talking about…
I’m standing on a table cheering for ‘passive and yielding’ vs. ‘active and influencing’. This is a frame of reference that I have rarely heard brought up in churches I’ve been a part of, and I believe that needs to change (but of course I’m too passive….oh never mind). If we could run with the mindset of influencing our culture (staying clear of political agenda) we wouldn’t have to worry about being too caught up in the past, AND we’d take care of the whole anxiety thing as well.
Interesting… it sounds like both of those descriptions have negative connotations. I would be interested to know what a good category would be, other than an institution or a movement.
I found your site through “Diane’s Little Journey of Faith” blog. I’m subscribing and wanted to say hello!
Anna
I’ll tell you what I think, but it may get me ousted from my “movement.”
that’s good stuff.
Primarily semantics. Good heart, and strong points, but I think a lot of folks get into trying to “re-label” things to fix them.
Really, the label doesn’t matter. The content or values of the organization are what matters. So, I don’t think there’s a dichotomy (I hope I spelled that right) between institutions and movements. It’s a difference between healthy, vibrant, and evolving organizations and those whose rigid systems have cultivated a culture of narrow-mindedness and unhealthy inward, small-minded focus.
I don’t usually hyphenate that words… I feel progressive.
It would be great to hear more about the experiences of church you each have, especially where you are now. Is that possible? Use the link Anne has provided to ‘My English-turned-Scottish friend, Geoffrey’
Thanks Anne.
I am the co-founder of a new thing [2006] called the Shema Movement….hmmmmm.
what do you think… I think?