The Church: Institution or Body (part 1)

I’ve been thinking for some time about the demise of traditional Church-dom (denominationalism) in America. OK, who hasn’t? But, a recent visit to the South Florida presbytery has helped me put better words to what I’ve been observing.

Denominationalism is dying. Churches that are seeking to build themselves based on their denominational identity are dying, as well (for the most part). Church leaders have been seeing this trend for a while but really don’t know how to address the changes and ‘steer’ their churches into the current of this social change.

I have seen two extremes in this desire to change: 1) cling to the traditional methods and 2) abandon the traditional methods. The problem for both of these approaches is that they are opposite sides of the same coin: identity by methodology. This may have some short-term results, but folks who genuinely yearn for more will quickly understand that they are being forced to be identified by a methodology. What do I mean by this?

Golf clubs are designed with a “leading edge.” The leading edge of a golf club is that portion of the club that is the first part to make contact with the ball and/or ground. There are many ways to design a golf club’s leading edge, but you will always have a leading edge. In the church, what I call “leading edge” some call “animating values” or “core principles.” I’m not talking about the theology or beliefs, but those things that are seen as marking a particular identity. Essentially, a leading edge is that characteristic that best tells others what you are.

In the past, most churches’ leading edge was that of “brand” – Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc… and particular churches were pretty much homogeneous people groups. And, that works well for an established church in an established community (at least for a while). A lot of churches have the leading edge of “what we stand for/against.” Some churches’ leading edge will be style of worship, young and hip, philosophical, and so on. But, the problem with these identifiers is that they are not dealing the core of the church as a people. They are only addressing homogeneous interests.

Church planting gurus have long advised the development of new churches based on the homogeneous people-group formula. What happens, though, is sadly shallow. Churches become institutions of like-minded, like-looking, like-doing people who shop in the same areas, send their children to the same schools, join the same clubs, work in the same arenas, and know the same people. This style of church development worked well in the 1980s and 90s, but has faltered since the dawn of the new millennium. What was happening? These churches were creating a “leading edge” based on common similarities and interests. They became ‘franchises’ of the larger institution. But, what happens when a particular church experiences decline or the community changes? Will the old formula of brand-identity continue to work? I think not.