We expect the proliferation of institutions and hierarchies in the human realm — business, government, the military, education. But there is no place for such things in the Lord’s ekklesia because it is not a human organization. It is a spiritual temple whose Builder and Maker is Christ.

Probably most of us have been part of some group in school, college, church or society that started out with excitement and verve, but after a period of time ended up in stagnancy and micro-management. The members found themselves maintaining the shell when in fact the original vibrancy was gone.

Bob Lupton makes some astute observations along these lines in his article, “The Cycle of Life.” However, there is one fatal flaw in the article: he assumes that when a group moves from its organic beginnings to its institutionalization that it somehow always remains organic. Not so. Becoming established as an institution is a retrogression that kills organic life. Listen carefully to what Bob says:

The Western church is in such a decline. Viewed against the backdrop of history, however, the current demise of denominations is predictable. In time, all institutions follow a similar pattern.  They begin as fresh movements, new and exciting, abundant with vision and creativity.  But in order to survive, a movement must development structural strength – mission statement, doctrinal distinctives, leadership structure, decision-making processes.

Vigorous change takes place during this organizational phase as a seedling becomes established, sinking its roots and spreading its branches.  Staff are hired, budgets are created, policies are instituted, goals and objectives are set, property is purchased.  As the organization matures it becomes a source of security for its employees.  Health insurance, vacation pay, cost of living raises, retirement benefits are negotiated.  Gradually the mission shifts from the founding visionaries to hired employees and with each subsequent ring of management the passion that originally inspired the movement becomes slightly diluted.  Marketing, management, and funding consume increasing amounts of organizational energy.  With its own sturdy root system, it now commands its fair share of sunlight and space on the forest floor.

By the time the organization enters the institutional phase of its development, it is fully vested in its own self-preservation. Instead of a movement spending itself on behalf of a noble cause, it has become a respectable institution consumed with preserving its own viability and legacy. It may still use the same stirring language of its past movement days, and it may still perform important work, but it spends the lion’s share of its energy on buildings, communication systems, internal politics and self-promotion to ensure its longevity. Good stewardship demands its preservation. It is the way of all institutions” (Bob Lupton, “Cycle of Life,” September, 2010,

I think an overview of human history would justify the observation that people have a propensity to move from simple beginnings to bureaucratic mazes at the end of the day. This is certainly what occurred as history moved on from the early church to the post-apostolic church.

Take the Lord’s Supper, for example. What began as believers remembering the Lord in a simple meal morphed into a complicated liturgical “sacrament” which had to be officiated by a specially ordained religious person. Emil Brunner documented many such occasions where simplicity was overtaken by complexity in The Misunderstanding of the Church (1952).

James D.G. Dunn noted that “increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism,” and that “such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change” (Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, Westminster Press, 1977, p. 351). Bob Lupton suggests that “in order to survive, a movement must development structural strength – mission statement, doctrinal distinctives, leadership structure, decision-making processes.” These are the crucial questions we must face: Must the communal life of Christ in believers be institutionalized in order to survive? Was the movement from early church simplicity to later church bureaucracy inevitable and good, or a terrible distortion and tragedy?

The truth is that in our practice we have tried to institutionalize the living Christ. That which is organic cannot thrive in an institutional environment. The DNA does not match. Of course, it must be said that there are people in many church-institutions who are expressions of the living Christ. But the living Christ is not a fit for institutional structures. It would be like hoping that an orchid would flourish in a barren desert, or that a cactus would do well in a rainforest.

If we believe that the simplicity of Christ is truth worth continuing, then we must resist our tendency toward institutionalism with every fiber of our being. If believers were satisfied with Jesus Christ alone, institutions wouldn’t have a chance of taking over.

Frederick Buechner pointed out that churches could learn a lot from support groups like AA. They do not own buildings and have virtually no overhead. “They make you wonder,” he went on to say, “if the best thing that could happen to many a church might not be to have its building burn down and to lose all its money. Then all that the people would have left would be God and each other” (cited in my A Church Building Every ½ Mile: What Makes American Christianity Tick? 2008, p.72).

Mary Pipher perceptively noted, “Too often [health] institutions are about the needs of the institution, not of the patients” (Another Country, 2000, p. 167). Jesus did not come to start another religious institution with every candle and pulpit in its proper place. By giving his life in crucifixion, taking his life back in resurrection, returning to Father by his ascension, and pouring out his Spirit on the day of Pentecost – he assured that his people would express his life in them as the Body of Christ on earth – organically, not as an institution. – Jon Zens



  1. Anthony Kasper says

    I love the way you seperate the expressions of the living Christ from the institution. (Of course, it must be said that there are people in many church-institutions who are expressions of the living Christ.) As I read different articles and hear thoughts on this subject I have been concerned that some blend them together and if you go to an Institutional church you are some how bad or evil. The people are beautiful, the system is corrupt, may God help us in expressing that firmly, lovingly, and correctly. In my own journey it has taken a while to understand and seperate. There is a song called I Will Declare The Beauty Of The Lord. I believe as we declare the beauty of our Lord in organic church living it will cause the deception of institutionalism to fade away and the glory of God to shine. (now after saying that I hope I expressed it correctly 🙂

    • Well put, Anthony! Those are some great observations! It is a heart-break that so many beautiful people are trying to function in a counter-productive system.

    • Kat Huff says

      Anthony, I absolutely agree with your statement: “I believe as we declare the beauty of our Lord in organic church living it will cause the deception of institutionalism to fade away and the glory of God to shine.” Well said, my brother!

      Always the answer is Christ! Only by others seeing Christ in us can anything change. Jesus Christ is the doer; all glory and praise belong to Him, because we can do nothing without Him.

      The pointing fingers should always be pointing at only One, the Lord Jesus Christ!

      • Pam Frazier says

        There are good people in the institutional system, that corrupt system however I have seen corrupt a lot of the people in it. Is it the first law of thermodynamics that says all things tend toward entropy? Is that what is now happening to the IC? Entropy, chaos, an unbinding of itself? I think in order for the true body of Christ to get back to it’s roots, organic expression of Christ! It is all about Love and when that disappears from the “church” it will crumble in on itself.

        • stravo lukos says

          pam said, ” It is all about Love and when that disappears from the “church” it will crumble in on itself.” or worse! look at catholicism and prebyterianism and all the other entrenched ‘isms out there. my dear brother, richard dickson, called them God’s doghouses for kids who won’t behave.

  2. Back in the early ’70’s Felicity and I were part of a grand experiment in church planting within our medical school. The excitement of this particular church, made up primarily of medical students and nurses, was being mirrored around the country by the spontaneous explosion of hundreds (maybe even thousands) of new church starts. But there was a different between the two. In our medical school, the Lord had somehow put into our DNA that we were never to have enough structure that the church could exist with the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

    About 5 years after we had left Barts Hospital in London, and the thriving church there, to help plant a new church in one of the poorest parts of London, we received a call from the then leadership team. “What should we do? The meetings are still packed, but it seems like the presence of the Lord is not here in the way that we used to know.” So we turned the question back to them, to find out what they felt to be the way forward. In response they told us what we had all agreed many times over the years and that was that if and when the presence of the Lord left, we would be glad to let the church disband. To their credit, this is exactly what they did. The members scattered and became the seed of several other church starts around the city and around the country. The church at Barts Hospital was over.

    Now, almost 40 years later, we still see the impact and influence of the early pioneers from that church in the medical school. Repeated cycles of new life have come through them. But sadly, the movement of churches across the UK from that time has more or less settled for the institutional forms that Jon enumerates in his article. The cloud continues to move, while we so often are ready to settle down. God is looking for pioneers, those who keep looking for the city “whose builder and maker is God.” We so often would rather be settlers!

  3. This was well put. I did a piece on “Biblical Evolution” that touches on the fact that we as Christians do not believe in Darwin’s Theory, but have somehow evolved our biblical principles and practices to that of a worldly trend. God bless!

  4. Jon, I totally agree. We have always had the philosophy that we never wanted so much structure or organization in anything we did that it could survive without the presence of the Holy Spirit. It’s proved a valuable safeguard. Death is a part of life, and sometimes our structures need to die so that new life can come.

  5. “…the Lord’s ekklesia…is not a human organization. It is a spiritual temple whose Builder and Maker is Christ.” I’m sure you didn’t intend it this way, but this sounds a bit Platonic to me. The Church is not a purely spiritual, immaterial ideal. Because Christ is both human and divine in one Person, the Church as His body is both human and divine. And in its “human-ness”, it seems appropriate that the Church would make use of human institutional forms to be firmly rooted in the world of man-kind. Though I agree that the essense of the Church is not institution, I disagree that true Life cannot exist within institutional forms.

    • Clay, the Body of Christ on earth is made up of redeemed humans, but neither the physical body nor the spiritual body is an institution — it is an organic life-form. The ekklesia comes into life by Christ’s initiative, and is to be an icon of the future — an upside-down kingdom — which functions by the Spirit, and is in no need of human institutional props. Some true life exists in many institutional structures. The problem is, as I pointed out, that such structures are out of sync with kingdom DNA. Life can only go so far in such such settings, and at some point it meets resistance at best or brick walls at worst.

  6. You guys are on fire! Very nice article, Jon. I really appreciate it. For those seeking organic expressions of the church, it is helpful, maybe even critical, that we see the warning signs of slipping back into institutionalism. May Christ sustain by His life with Him alone as our vision!

  7. Well and honestly stated, Jon! The key phrase, to me is this: ” . . . the living Christ is not a fit for institutional structures.” How frequently, during my own sojourn with the institutional church, and trying to sort out and resolve “church conflict” did I find myself thinking, “if all that mattered in this dispute were Christ, and if it were not for the polity and orthopraxy of the institution, the cure would be simple and obvious.”

    Institutional structures essentially require a deceased Christ, a Memorial Christ in order to function efficiently. A lifeless Christ enables and facilitates the liturgy that feigns life and a commemorative Christ permits our voices to supplant His voice.

    If He is not truly alive, we can speak for Him, interpret Him through our own, deficient filters and so create our own, warped version of the entity He told us He alone would build.

    Of course, the very activity of coming to a living Savior, with expectant hearts, open ears and empty agendas requires that we descend from our honorific towers of knowledge and authority and pronounce Him Lord of His church and of our lives instead of ourselves. So much simpler to institutionalize the whole package, write everything down in a code and a creed and pretend that what we have is what the primitive church had.

  8. LeeAnn Boyer says

    OMG! That’s my living room in that pic. We were just talking about this the other day, the whole “us and them” attitude. We must hold up the idea of the “One Body” to all our brothers and sisters who still gather in an institutional setting. The last institutional church we went to the pastor said he believed that you can put too much emphasis on forms but you can conversely put too much emphasis on NOT having forms. The substance is the essential thing, it is less important what forms you do or do not have. But I disagree with this statement, If Jesus is the “substance” we are talking about here He is not going to be bound by forms of any kind. When He actually leads the meeting it could look very different every time. Thanks for your article I will definitely pass it on! And come visit us again sometime we LOVED having you!

  9. Love the article, Christ is organic, living, moving, flowing through time, is beyond time. I have to wonder though, if the church burnt down, if they just wouldn’t rebuild a bigger building. I’m not sure they would get the message.

  10. Me and some friends of mine have just begun this journey from institution to organic church life. I cannot tell you how much my heart yearns to see/experience/taste the meeting where Christ leads. We have had small glimmers during our nine month book study, but I’m excited as the Holy Spirit continues to prepare the way for us to function as His body. So.excited!

  11. Arlan Purdy says

    Jon, you know I agree with you in large measure and I still do. Usually I have more categorically rejected the forms of the institutional church than you do. I think some of the ways you have corrected me in the past would apply here. I don’t think that it is quite accurate to say that “If we believe that the simplicity of Christ is truth worth continuing, then we must resist our tendency toward institutionalism with every fiber of our being.” Similarly I am not comfortable with the analogy of “It would be like hoping that an orchid would flourish in a barren desert, or that a cactus would do well in a rainforest.”

    To my ear these phrases suggest that simplicity is a form which promotes godliness. I agree that institutionalism is a flesh-life system that attempts to order life without relying on the Spirit of God, but I think simplicity is a less common method for doing the same thing. We have people who practice simplicity as a way of life, such as the Amish and the Hutterites and the Quakers, and we see that their formalized simplicity itself is, formally, no better than Catholicism.

    The simplicity of following Christ is not in contrast to the complexity of the world, but altogether separate. The biological analogy suggests that there is a “right place” in which life will flourish in contrast to a “wrong place” which will stifle it, but Hebrews teaches us that the whole world is not our home. The suggestion that we can resist institutionalization with simplicity has in it the misleading concept that we can “protect” the life of Christ from harm.

    I personally often feel the temptation to run to Jesus and say, “Lord, Lord, don’t you see that we your people are perishing in the sea of institutionalism? How can you sleep when we will all drown?” But I find that his answer is, “Am I not Lord of the sea?”

    We certainly should question if the programs, policies, methods and practices that we are accustomed to do actually nurture the life of Christ, but I feel as though you suggested (perhaps unintentionally, and I am mistaking your words) that there is some other way that we can nurture that life other than the man, Jesus Christ.

    Jon, I appreciate you reminding me in the past that it is not the steeples and pews themselves that are dishonoring to God. Because of your work I have been led to consider that God is not asleep and his promises are not slack, as some count slackness. Let us continue to remember to celebrate what God is doing rather than suggest that he do something differently.

  12. stravo lukos says

    my friend greg would come home from a church service and toss his bible on the table w/ a sardonic pronouncement, “alms for the church building! alms for the pastor’s new house!” whenever the church becomes socially acceptable, it’s probably in its death throes. question time: how do you decide what is and what ain’t from God? if someone has a message to deliver (usually prefaced, “God revealed to me…”), how do you determine authenticity? i have some ideas, but would really like some input here.

    • Well, everything set forth publicly in the body context is to be weighed by those present. The Lord Jesus’ word is to be the benchmark. Obviously, this does not solve the problem because most groups claim that “the Bible” is their standard. However, there is reason to believe that when Jesus is in the midst of a humble, open, discerning assembly, good and evil can be tested. Of course, we will always have to live with a certain level of ambiguity because no group will have all of Christ, and every group will make mistakes. Sadly, monologues dominate gatherings, so there is no time allowed for questions, insights from others — no time for “weighing” what has been put on the table.

  13. Thanks Jon! 🙂 I really appreciate what you have shared here along with the Great conversation!


  14. Enjoyed what you offer Brother Jon’…
    I will post before reading the comments offered:
    By view of these comments by Brother Bob Lupton when he’ our Brother comments to structure & instruction conveyed to be institutional, he’ by use & usage, a person can come-away by saying, sure this applies as insightful dichotomy—church & situational-institutional structure. A question asked: Okay stand at some distance to define them true by nature of its ensample given by Bob’, pliable? Only yes: I mean only when to think that what was stated (started) at the beginning was organic in the first place.

    Brother Bob’s example of an organic setting, being of the so called church relatable to be the church today, the church of today ‘would half to be presently organic! Brother Bob’s grasp of church history is flawed. Of this alone I do not agree with Brother Bob’s approach to use this as an example, which in his own mind applies. Yet in so many it does apply! My deepest preyed is that G_d profoundly open the eyes of all believers to embrace beyond principle the life & death of Jesus Christ’! Please take a look at these two very growing web-sites which would agree with Brother Lupton’s example / &

    These expressive web-sites do show a growing concern to keep all status as church as church; putting a new spin on old dilemmas of stagnancy / a Brother named Fred London “author” stated a year ago, that these men of right reason should be working themselves out of a job / My RE: rather than attempting to keep a system working so they have a job to control its outcome; authority within these systems of religion should disqualify themselves of any & all responsibility as leaders of a system by far un-organic, they should not be given a title or job description.

    This system as mention by Brother Jon Zens is by far more sound / and yet has by far, ‘expressed there are deeper reasons that haven’t hit the mark yet. What has hit the mark, ‘is wherein Jon states, we’ must resist our tendency toward institutionalism with every fiber of our being; ‘But before one sees a resolute to reject, one has to see even as it were dimly through a glass the reason to resist institutionalism.

    If asked too chose one or the other, over the other, I’d choose Jon’s explanation by far!

    Furthermore: to the very explanation Bob was after to explain how growth & death do appear within a human-system of digression to its own growth. (Human system, one whereof under a sequence – is no different than the earth under a curse of death & a-waits life. The earth waits to be set free from this curse)

  15. Jon,

    This is a great and very eye opening description of the cycle that institutions follow. As a former ‘institution’ planter, I can tell you that this is exactly what happens. I’m thankful for your work brother.


  16. Jon, I love analogies and the one you gave there :It would be like hoping that an orchid would flourish in a barren desert, or that a cactus would do well in a rainforest. is just not stark enough.

    So how about “it would be like locking up a tourist for the night in Madame Tussauds and expecting him to feel at home.”

  17. One of the greatest pitfalls of the “institutional church” is the desire to determine structure based upon human reason. That is why it is so ironic that you have determined these opinions upon a philosophical idealism that is not found in Scripture (the true bedrock of our convictions). I find, in your aticle, no reason to believe, based upon scripture alone (Soli Scriptura), this well intended view.

    On the other hand, the Old Testament is replete with examples of His institutions. The Temple and the Tabernacle are just two examples of where God is pleased to set up, in human terms, an institution. Jesus Himself is able to be a sacrifice for sinners only within and upon the backdrop of the sacrificial system (an evident institution).

    I fear that with your obvious distaste for certain institutions you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. An honest inquiry into your own heart will reveal that God’s work can be hindered in us regardless of institution.

    We, fallen people, are the problem. Not the structure.

    • The OT is full of institutions. These, however, were types and shadows of the Reality that would come, Jesus Christ. He fulfills all of the OT institutions in his person and work. He was the final Temple. Believers are now a Temple of the Lord. You don’t continue institutions once the Reality has appeared in the fullness of time. The Samaritan woman asked Jesus about then-existing 1st century religious institutions, and he told her that those ways were terminated, and a new way was being opened up. Church historians are united in observing that the early church was building-less, clergy-less and ritual-less. As Dunn pointed out, institutionalization came later and was not part of the first generation.

      • The entire premise of your article is that institutions are inherently evil (correct me if I am wrong). Yet, you admit that “The OT is full of institutions.” Are the OT institutions exceptions to your premise? If so, then, the evil is not an essential part of institutionalism (categorically then, they cannot be inherently evil). The evil must be rooted elsewhere. Even a cursory understanding of hamartiology will reveal that intuitions cannot, by definition, sin/fall short. As I said before, “we, fallen people, are the problem. Not the structure.”

        • joyeagle says

          Let me be presumptuous enough to answer this, I am just entering the blogosphere, and this looks like an easy answer. Bill, if you will take time to reread the article, you will see it is a false suggestion that the article’s premise is that institutions are inherently evil. In fact, in Jon’s very first sentence he lists business, government, the military, and education as common institutions–certainly not inherently evil. He is simply proposing that Christ’s expression through his body is best in an organic expression, not institutionally. This article is not dealing with hamartiology at all … but the ideal expression of Christ’s body on earth.

          • Joyeagle, if one is arguing that the institutional church is falsely expressing Christ’s body on earth, then the institutional church, at best, is being accused of blasphemy against Christ, and at worst, heresy (resulting in damnation). Either way, it is certainly a question of hamartiology. The article makes a serious claim with serious implications regarding what is and isn’t appropriate in regard to the body of Christ. How can you not see this as a sin issue? Perhaps you believe that it is not sinful to misrepresent Christ?

        • Bill, I’m not saying institutions are evil. I am saying that religious institutions, by the very nature of their structures, snuff out the life of Christ in varying degrees. You did not seem to read very carefully what I stated in my first reply to you — the OT institutions were put into place by God, were types and shadows pointing to Christ, and were not continued after they were fulfilled; religious institutions are not put into place by the Lord, and the human traditions upon which they are based continue on and on stifling the Life of the Lord Jesus in the visible church.

          • Thank you for your thoughtful reply Jon. Perhaps I was presumptuous in thinking that you believed institutions are “evil.” Let me try to articulate my objection again. I fail to see how you can, in one moment, allow God to endorse (and even ordain religious institutions in the OT) while maintaining that the nature of the structure of religious institutions “snuff out the life of Christ.” There is clearly a double standard in your thinking if you can accept religious institutions in one era and reject religious institutions in another.
            Has God changed?
            Furthermore, I am still waiting to hear your Scriptural support for this position. It sure looks like you are basing your position upon a survey of history rather than Scripture alone.

  18. “Dr. Frankenstein and World Systems” by Bob Mumford is a great exposition on how all well-meaning organizations that are established tend towards institutionalism and turn into a commitment to the institution vs the value it was initialy established on. It has been a while sense I read it, but he didn’t suggest that is “just the way it is” like Bob Lupton’s article … actually I don’t remember any clear advice on how to avoid it other than just recognizing it and trying not to? That may not be a fair summary. I remember it was a fascinating read.

    Your quote from Buechner on the church learning from AA “structureless” groups reminded me of several discussions I had this week at Threshold2011 about the closest representation I have personally seen to Organic expression of church is in recovery meetings (Celebrate Recovery–Christian AA) … however it falls far short in that it’s meetings focus is on personal problems rather than the glories of the risen Christ.

    Anthony Kasper’s comment reminds me of the old adage, a counterfeit expert does not focus his expertise on recognizing all of the various types of counterfeits, but on what the REAL thing is like. That was always given in my case as a reminder not to focus on studying cults, or what the “devil is doing” to “protect yourself from error,” but to focus on Christ.
    Thanks for the encouragement!

  19. If the institutional ‘church’ stifles or quenches the Spirit of Christ, hindering most parts of the body in their respective functions thereby stopping spiritual growth at best and depressing the ‘body’ at worse, can we agree that that construct fashioned after the world that Jesus soundly condemned is evil? Not only can it kill the individual in his hopes and aspirations birthed in his spirit by the Holy Spirit, but his spiritual malady and vexation will squelch the life from his spouse and children and those in his realm of influence. This is spiritual destruction. I’d say evil.

  20. I agree with Jon on the idea of first century gathering. A real problem is that a person may never experience it though they pray for it for years and decades, a life time. I mean you can’t force christians to break out of the institution. They may have to sit alone for the rest of their lives. I’m 61 and still praying but time is running out.

  21. What if you don’t go to a traditional Sunday morning church anymore, but long for a fellowship that gathers regularly? I live in a very religious state in the bible belt, it is normal and expected to go to church even if your not a christian. What do you do in that case? Do you just say well if that is all I got then go anyways. I just can’t do the mundane church experience anymore. Sitting, standing sitting standing passing the plate and then listening to a sermon then going home. To me it is no different than the catholic church just the clothes are different and the message.

    I wish I could find a fellowship for me and my family but there is nothing around here except the same cookie-cutter church.


    • Mike – Your situation and struggles are quite common these days! As Reggie McNeal astutely observed, “A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith.”

      Of course, I know nothing of your specific living circumstances and context, but here are a few thoughts to chew on. Can you find a small group that meets outside of a church building to fellowship with? What steps could you take to discover others who may be in the same condition as yourself? Are there any unbelievers or non-church goers that you could develop a friendship with? I think in all cases like yours prayer is a huge factor. Pray that the Lord will bring people into your life – perhaps a person of peace may appear (Luke 10:6). Pray for the Spirit to lead you into opportunities to reach out to needy ones.

      We are living in strange days. Many religious institutions are headed for bankruptcy both financially and spiritually – yet people feel in varying degrees comfortable and secure in such settings. We have to realize that most people have only seen one model – the one with pastor and pews – so it is no wonder they are hesitant to pursue an alternative that just gathers around Jesus in simplicity.

  22. I have a question regarding other types of institutions. What about all the missionary missionaries & organizations that rely on churches for support? Do para church ministries fall under the same heading as IC?
    For the record, my heart is longing to be part of an Organic church. I agree with what you have written as well as the material I’ve read from Viola & Cole. Sadly, there isn’t an alternative to IC in our area. We are trying to get together monthly with those that are feeling the same pull of the Spirit. But it is going to take time to grow together as a body. We don’t have an agenda when we get together, but we do know that we desire for the Holy Spirit to do the work.
    Another question: How do I pray, what do I pray for in this situation? I know that we WILL know it when Christ is truly leading us. I’m excited and a little scared at the same time.

    • Pieter Pretorius says

      Genoise, I share your concerns. I am a missionary myself and I am by God’s grace not in a position where I have to visit traditional churches. My wife and I get our support from other Christians. Some how the Lord never directed us to approach traditional churches for support (in the days before He changed my understanding and insights).
      I come from a Reformed background, but have always been drawn to Charismatic people, until I had a very traumatic experience in this regard. Now I find myself very cautious of people’s claims “The Spirit says …” and consider it to be very subjective. Thus I am struggling to distinguish between subjective claims and genuine leading of the Holy Spirit. I have also discovered that I easily mistake my own (subjective) desires for Chrit’s leading.
      I am patiently waiting for answers to Genoise’s questions, as I think it will also bring clarity to me.
      God bless.

      • Pieter — There certainly is an abundance of screwball claims under the umbrella of “The Spirit is leading me to….” That’s one huge reason why we continually need the input of other brothers and sisters in our lives. As the hymn put it, “Prone to wander, Lord I feel it…” Any of us could easily go astray. All of us have witnessed folks who have gone away from Christ into rabbit trails or worse. Living life in Christ as led by the Spirit is certainly the opposite of putting life in a box and expecting black and white answers for every life-issue that pops up. People like Abraham were asked to do some things by the Lord that violated “common sense.” As Nathan Lee said in his song, Bring Down the Fire, “It ain’t faith until you’ve got no plan; it ain’t faith until you’re standing in the middle of what you will never understand.”

    • Genoise — Just as the pastoral institution has a boatload of organizations that support and propagate it — seminaries, ministerial associations, pastoral search committees, denominational headquarters, etc. — so para-church ministries tend to be dependent on institutional churches. Some para-church groups function more like ekklesias because they have less bureaucracy, and fellowship/burden-bearing/authenticity have more reality to them — yet it is said that they are not “church” because they do not baptize people or have the Lord’s Supper together!

      As to how to pray — pray that the Lord will build his ekklesia in your area. That’s the point — pursuing Christ with others is scary — because it’s not about using methods to get a result, but about Christ’s life expressing itself through jars of clay — this pursuit is indeed vulnerable and risky!

  23. Ed Benjamin says

    Jon, I thoroughly enjoy listening to and reading you’re opinions. You have a unique way of seeing and analyzing. I had a thought as I was reading the comments and replies — what if the institutions of today are like the institutions in the OT, shadows of what is coming?
    The second coming of Christ? In that case they have a purpose and are being used by God to prepare us for something better. Just saying!

    • Thanks, Ed, for your comments. The problem with your analogy is that the OT types/shadows were based on the ultimate reality of Jesus Christ. The religious institutions, however, are rooted in human traditions that nullify the word of God, not in the reality of Christ.

Speak Your Mind