Recently, Martin Thielen, a retired United Methodist minister, asked, “Can Christianity be deinstitutionalized?”
For a growing number of modern believers, the old familiar institutional dynamics are unraveling. The doctrines are no longer relevant. The creeds are no longer believable. The traditions are no longer meaningful. The liturgy is no longer helpful. The rigid structures are no longer palatable.
Whatâs a Christian to do when centuries-old institutionalism no longer holds? What happens to followers of Jesus when they, like Brooks, contemplate departing the institutionalized religion of their past and face a changing world without the familiar structures that used to ground them? It can be disorientating indeed.
Iâm not suggesting itâs time to throw away all the vestiges of institutional Christianity. As already noted, for many people, the old wineskins still work. But a growing number of restless believers are looking for new wineskins of Christian expression. They want less institution and more flexibility. Less certainty and more ambiguity. Less arrogance and more humility. Less doctrine and more connection. Less exclusion and more inclusion. Less focus on creeds and more focus on compassion. Less time meeting in church buildings and more time serving in the community.
In short, a lot of 21st-century believers are seeking a post-institutionalized (or at least a less institutionalized) version of Christianity.
Outside of members of sects such as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement, who love to call themselves “old-fashioned” — meaning “we worship just like the first-century church did” — most Christians know that the Christianity of the twenty-first century bears little to no resemblance to that practiced in the first century. (Please see What Independent Baptists Mean When They Use the Phrase âOld-Fashioned.â) If Jesus and his disciples showed up for worship on a Sunday at your average Evangelical church, they likely wouldn’t recognize anything remotely similar to worship and practice in 50 CE.
In the first two centuries CE, we do not see anything resembling contemporary âChristianityâ or, for that matter, âChristianityâ as it was in the later ancient world, in the Middle Ages, or across human history. In the first two centuries, what we think of as âChristianityâ did not exist.
For example, during the first 200 years after Jesus â and before institutional Christianity became the norm â there were:
â±No set doctrinal beliefs
â±No set structure or organization
â±No set order of church leadership
â±No set authoritative Christian writings
â±No set traditions, liturgies or sacraments
â±No set Christology
â±No set name for the movement
According to “After Jesus Before Christianity” [by Erin Vearncombe, Brandon Scott and Hal Taussig], the early Jesus movement was open-ended, fluid, noncentralized and diverse. It had no settled theological orthodoxy, no âNew Testament,â no formal clergy and no established ecclesiastical structure. In short, it was not yet institutionalized.
Growth, change, and maturity are typical for human institutions. My partner and I have been married for almost forty-six years. Our relationship is very different today from what it was in 1978. The U.S. Supreme Court settles constitutional issues on behalf of the American people (at least some of them). There are two approaches to interpreting the Constitution. One approach reads and interprets the Constitution as it was originally written. The other approach reads and interprets the Constitution as a living, breathing, evolving document. Just today, the Court agreed to settle the issue of whether disgraced ex-president Donald Trump, can appear on the Colorado ballot. How the nine Court justices view the Constitution will certainly come into play and likely decide this issue.
Thielen thinks Christianity needs to return to its “original intent.” However, thanks to 2,000 years of complicated history, Christianity is far removed from its original intent. Christianity, much like the U.S. Constitution, is a “living, breathing, evolving” institution. I will be sixty-seven on my next birthday. Historically, I can see how much Christianity has changed and evolved over its twenty-one-century history. I can also see how Christianity has changed in my own lifetime. I spent fifty years in the Evangelical church. While some things remain the same as when I was coming of age in the 60s and 70s, other things have dramatically changed. Even IFB churches have changed, albeit much slower than the rest of Evangelicalism. Whatever Christian churches have become today, they look nothing like those planted by Paul and others in the early days of Christianity.
Can Christianity be deinstitutionalized? The short answer is no. I suspect Thielen knows this, and what he really desires is a less institutionalized church. However, I question if even this is possible. Once humans gather together in groups, institutionalism is sure to follow. In the 1980s, I started a youth fellowship in southeast Ohio. At its height, fifteen churches participated in the fellowship. The fellowship was organic, without officers and structure. However, over time, some pastors began clamoring for organization — complete with officers, offerings, and doctrinal/social standards. Things went south quickly when an argument broke out over Calvinism — mainly my Calvinism. It was not long after that the fellowship disintegrated and everyone went their separate ways. Why couldn’t some of these pastors leave well enough alone? In their minds, progress required organization. I, of course, disagreed.
In the 2000s, I became disenchanted with organized Christianity and started to rethink my approach to ministry. For a time, I was enamored with the house church movement. I thought, at the time, that house churches reflected the simple nature and practice of the first-century church — albeit imperfectly. However, as time went along, I noticed that the house church movement had its own institutional structures and controls. Supposedly, everyone was equal before the Lord, but it quickly became clear that some people — mainly men — were more important than others. The same cult of personality that I saw in institutional Christianity was present in a nascent form in the house church movement. (Please see The Evangelical Cult of Personality.)
I concluded that Christianity could not be rescued; that whatever first-century Christianity might have been, it no longer existed. In its place, we have countless Christianities, complete with Jesuses molded and shaped into our image. Take the average Evangelical megachurch — which is little more than a social club where likeminded people gather for entertainment from an AWESOME band and a dope, hip, designer clothes-wearing felt needs dispenser named Pastor Smooth. Do you see anything that remotely resembles the early church? Would Jesus put his stamp of approval on these multi-million-dollar monuments to “coolness” and corporate Christianity? I doubt it.
While Christianity can’t deinstitutionalize, it can try to trim the fat and excess and embrace the teachings of Jesus as found in the Sermon on the Mount. Imagine if churches committed to following the two great commands: loving God, loving your neighbor as yourself? (Please see What is TRUE Christianity?) Imagine if churches fired their pastors and told them to get real jobs, using the money spent on salaries and benefits to minister to the least of these? Imagine if churches took seriously Christ’s teachings about ministering to widows, orphans, and the poor? Imagine if church buildings became community centers, open to all? Imagine if leaders stopped writing books and traveling the conference speaking circuit, choosing to invest their time and money in laying treasure up in Heaven? The church can be better, so much so that even an atheist might look at it and say, “I see Jesus in you!” I have no confidence that this will happen any time soon — if ever. More likely, Christianity will continue to morph and change, moving farther and farther away from the early church.
Note: I am not suggesting that Christianity is “true.” As an atheist, I reject the central claims of Christianity. However, I am suggesting that as a social institution, modern Christianity is far removed from its roots, so much so that it is unrecognizable from the first century church. Christianity ain’t going away, but it sure as Hell can do better.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
Original intent constitution
I think the author might be in error. The Didache has been dated to the early 2nd century or first century. It describe Christian behavioral prohibitions (among them greed and avarice) as well as worship in detail- practices such as Wednesday and Friday fasting, the Eucharist, etc.
IMO it actually reflects a simplicity of practice and behavior that would probably rub many Yay-Jesus! hipster evangelicals as âboringâ or even better âworks based salvationâ (gasp!).
When these folks say they want to be like the âearly churchâ, I would say then you should be a combination of Old Order Amish/Hutterite and rudimentary Catholic- the church in the Book of Acts held all goods in common (which is heavily emphasized in the Rule of St. Benedict). The church in the Didache emphasized fasting, rules of good conduct, liturgy and the Eucharist. No cool light shows, skinny Jean flannel shirt lumberjack bearded Pastor Smooths, waiving hands jumping around and muttering jibberish (Iâm sorry, I meant âSpeaking in Tonguesâ).
I put a link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
Probably true, but I am not sure that the church must remain looking like 50 CE. I am pretty sure it should not look like a J Lo rock concert, however. As for speaking in tongues, there was that, though the Corinthians let it get way out of hand.
Hi Don- I converted to Catholicism in 2018. I was raised in a church that was the exact opposite- the Assemblies of God. I ultimately was drawn by the beauty and reverence in most Catholic Churches, as well as the solemn but vibrant nature of the Mass. I also will not defend or in any way gloss over the horrendous abuses committed by Catholic clergy or their incompetent leadership. At this point, I think most major Christian denominations have experienced some type of sex abuse scandal.
I agree somewhat that church does not have to look like 50 AD, but I think those who keep disparaging ancient faith type churches (Catholic and Orthodox) and/or mainline liturgical Protestant churches (many of which tend to be on the liberal side of things) by saying, âwe want to be like the âearly churchâ- hoorah!â Donât really understand what the âearly churchâ looked like- it was proto-Catholic. And the really awesome pre-Constantine church was certainly not pure. I think a person has to be where they feel âat homeâ. Thatâs the feeling I had the first time I attended Mass at my local Catholic Church.
I also think âhomeâ is different for everyone, and for many it is no Chris church at all. I most certainly understand that choice as well.
I am still connected on Facebook with some of my Sunday school teachers from my youth in Southern Baptist church. These are ladies in their 70s, close to 80 at this point. I see their posts about their 40+ year friendships with other couples in the church – parties and trips they take together – and it’s sweet, actually. Their connection is church – I doubt if they would know each other without church, especially as a group. I am sure that what these folks get from church is the community, the friends, the structure. If any one of those families disaffiliated from the church, they’d probably lose their close connection with the friend group.
Hi Obstacle. I remember one of my very religious (she was married to a Church of God Pastor) aunts- like only wear skirts religious. She was the salt of the Earth to me in my childhood. Her children, whether Protestant, Orthodox (her oldest became Orthodox late in life) or non-religious all loved her, as we extended nieces and nephews did.
When I was a young adult and very non-religious, it was difficult for me to dispute my religious non-practice with her- not because she was mean or hateful, but because she was so kind, and expressing an explicit statement of non old-fashioned Appalachian Protestant belief would break her heart. It would have actually been easier if she had been mean, rigid and hateful about it.
Looking back, it makes me understand (as Bruce himself has described) that dealing with our fundamental Protestant religious friends and family who are also very good and loving people raised in a different era is complicated. I admire Bruceâs approach to this- be mindful of time and place. Know when (and how) to be honest and when to back off.
Yes, similarly, my daughter’s fundy church with long boring sermons and wacky, cringe-y ‘cool’ sessions for the kids is an amazing support group that I can’t fault on the close bonds, the community it has. I was chatting to a pregnant member recently and my daughter came over and said ‘Mum, recognise the maternity top she’s wearing?’ It had been bought by my other daughter when she was pregnant 13yrs ago 200 miles away. It’s bagged up and passed on to be worn by several expectant mums since – as have the supply of posh frocks they lend one another if one’s needed for a wedding etc! Some great cooks there too, I’ve had delicious meals at parties or when my family is ill or has a new baby. I can see totally why they stick together and privately think they don’t rate the worship at all – the pastor’s homophobic, but as teachers, doctors, social workers etc that most of the younger adults are, they’re inclusive….but choose not to confront the leadership, you’d lose so much by leaving the group.
Bruce, you anticipated one of my thoughts when you compared peopleâs notions of âtraditional â Christianity with interpretations of the Constitution.
I also thought about what I told my students whenever I assigned a play by Shakespeare or one of the ancient Greeks. Not only were politics and social morĂ©s different; so was theatre. For one thing, it was much more of a social âglueâ than it is today: People went to see a play as they would, in later centuries , go to concerts, movies or sporting events. In other words, values were transmitted and shared, just as they are in churches.
Also, Shakespeare and earlier playwrights didnât have the technology Steven Spielberg has. The audience had to envision more of the scene and actionâand intuit charactersâ thoughtsâthan we do today. Thatâs one reason why dialogues (soliloquies) are so central to those playsâand why actors turned to the audience and delivered their lines in stentorian tones like the ones you hear in old movies.
In addition to reading the plays, I had the students watch a âtraditional â and modern production of the play. I would then pose the âtraditional vs. modernâ question. Interestingly, the students who never read the plays before class and probably wouldnât read them again were as likely as not to favor the âtraditional â while those who were more interested often preferred, or at least saw a good reason for, modern interpretations.
MJ, you sound like a great teacher. Your students were lucky to have you! đđ
KarunaâThank you. (She blushes.)
Most Christian evangelists are just as intractable as those who’ve deconstructed. Only the few who use their noggins honestly will switch sides. And some of those, like me, are cowards and don’t tell their evangelist families and friends because of the high social price they’d pay. It’s just not worth the fight.
Maybe we should do like the late great comedian, Louie Anderson, suggested: fly over and drop peanut M&Ms on everybody. They’ll be so busy bagging them up that they won’t have time to fight.
Thank you for this brief, as s layman it’s difficult to distinguish, much less understand what Christianity was and is.
I appreciate you likening Church’s as an evolving, rather large group of social institutions, that rallies around the standard of what is called Christianity, albeit with thousands of different interpretations of what that is and means.
Sadly one of the hallmarks of Christianity is a rather determined commitment toward the disenfranchisement of Women.
I find your descriptions reasonable and through the lens of a person that has great knowledge of it. Thank you for sharing.