“Stepchild,” a former IMB Missionary, has written an interesting article comparing Christians to animals in captivity and in the wild. For the faithful reader of my blog, this comparison echos my thoughts on Institutional v. Missional, which you can read on the IVM page.
Stepchild even uses the word “Institutionalized” to refer to a certain church structure and, in my opinion, mindset. He breaks Christians down to three “types”:
- Those who came to faith outside the church setting are quickly assimilated into the Christian culture. They are taught to speak, act, and think like a Christian (each according to the customs of his local zoo, of course.) On the one hand, this process is seen as a rescue operation. On the other, it’s a cruel and unnecessary act that strips a person of his ability to relate, understand, and survive in what was his natural environment.
- Believers who grew up in church really don’t stand a chance in the wild. Their dependence on doctors, caregivers, guards, and spectators makes them unprepared to face the challenges of life in the real world. They position themselves in pecking order, clinging to the members of their small groups for social comfort.
- Christians who operate outside the walls of an institutionalized church. Some simply slipped through the cracks of the programs that the church designed for them. Others came to faith through real relationships and have never found it necessary to trade real life for a safely synthetic one. These aren’t lone wolves- they move in dynamic but fiercely loyal packs and herds.
He concludes:
Institutional church is bad for believers, bad for ministry, and bad for the environment. Okay, maybe not so bad for the environment, but you know what I mean.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
brad andrews
on Jan 14th, 2009
@ 2:11 pm:
good stuff art…
i particularly thought this was an insightful comment, “it’s a cruel and unnecessary act that strips a person of his ability to relate, understand, and survive in what was his natural environment.”
this is hirsch/cole language. the idea of “extracting” new believers to an institution rather than starting a church in their environment – in turn, redefining is one that the postmodern church is going to have to wrestle with…
art rogers
on Jan 14th, 2009
@ 3:23 pm:
I thought that was particularly poignant as well.
What scares me is the statement, “believers that grow up in church don’t really stand a chance in the wild.”
If that is absolutely true, we’re in big trouble and I need to quit worrying about “transitioning” a traditional church from Institutional to Missional.
Of course, I don’t think it “absolutely” true, though I myself frequently find myself sticking to the rules of life and church culture that I grew up with, so there is some significance to the thought.