Are we building for the future of the church or the bureaucracy? Part 1
posted by Tim Nafziger on 04/19/10 at 04:12 PM
A few weeks ago I sat down with a group of Mennonite Mission Network staff who have been managing the $10 million capital campaign for the new Mennonite Church USA building on the campus of Associated Mennonite Biblical seminaries in Elkhart, Ind. The staff members were meeting with a number of people inside and outside of the institution who have had significant concerns and questions about the direction this project is taking the church.
In listening to the the responses from Mission Network staff to theological and missiological questions raised by the dissenters, I was struck by how much they focused on institutional values such as finances, efficiency and professionalism. The conversation made real for me the way the institutions of the Mennonite church are centered on values of professionalism and institutional interests in their decision making process. I heard them asking: What would a professional do? before asking, "What would Jesus do?"
For those talking with us, it was clear that they saw their institution at the center of the future of the church. You can see this clearly in the the language of the bulletin insert for the campaign. It invites donors to "Help strengthen the future of Mennonite Church USA" and "build the future" and talks about "investing in hope." Is this building really the future of the church? Is this institution?
The metaphor that came to mind for me in thinking about church institutions was is that of a vehicle. In building the vehicle, the church hoped to better live out Jesus' call. They looked to others building similar vehicles in both the secular and religious world. They valued stability, continuity and efficiency. They saw the necessity of the vehicle in moving things forward. Over time, the perspective of those who work within the vehicle is shaped by the necessiities of vehicle maintenance and fuel.
Here's how Kathy E. Ferguson puts it in The Feminist Case Against Bureacracy.
The norms and rules dominant in bureaucracy, as in any social system, are generally those that support the requirements of bureaucratic self-maintenance. Motivations and behavior that are consistent with the needs of self-maintenance are encouraged and rewarded; those inconsistent with it are penalized. Thus the real goals of the organization become those that keep the machinery of the institution running.
At the same time, the instinct to institution build is understandable. Institutions promise to preserve a vision for a future generation: to make a part of ourselves immortal. Those who work for them can derive a sense of meaning and belonging, not to mention a job. My parents both work at Mennonite instititions and I spent a wonderful two and half years volunteering with the Mission Network in London. At their best, instiutions can provide community for their workers and constituents.
But how do we know when we're off balance? How do we know when the values of institutional maintenance have become too central in our thinking about church? I look forward to looking more at these questions in part two of this article.
I'll leave you with this quote from Jesus Matters, edited by James Krabill and David W. Shenk:
Photo by by Marco Bellucci. Licensed under Creative Commons by attribution 2.0Does church mean an institutionalized, bureaucratic organization, irrelevant, slow to respond and limiting our potential? Obviously, this was not at all what Jesus had in mind. The church is meant to be an alternative community, subverting the values of our dominant society with kingdom of God priorities. It is to be radical, countercultural, and prophetic. It is to be a mobile and portable reservoir of kingdom-living that can be present and contextualized everywhere. Because the agenda of the ekklesia is the agenda of God's kingdom, its interests are not narrow but broadly inclusive of all things that impact the welfare of society as well as creation. - Jack Suderman with Andrew Suderman and Irene, Bryan, Derek, Julie, Rebecca and Karen Suderman in the "Jesus and the Church" chapter
Tim Nafziger is a activist, writer, organizer and web developer. He lives in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago with his wife Charletta where he attends Living Water Community Church. He is the administrator for the Young Anabaptist Radicals blog and serves as Outreach Coordinator for Christian Peacemaker Teams. For more about his life, read his first blog post.
Thank, you Tim! That's an excellent criticism of increased bureaucracy. I find it sad that the very thing that Anabaptism was opposing in Europe in the 1500's is what we are now exercising within the Anabaptist communities. The church is not supposed to be about institutions, but about people relating to people in a community bonded by love. Look forward to part II. BTW, we're studying "Jesus Matters" as a church right now. I may post to YAR something concerning that chapter when we get to it.
Why must Anabaptist radicals be limited to the young whose vision carries the church forward and blesses it. Might not the dreams of the Anabaptist elders be just as radical. I submit the probability that the managers of the building project view themselves as radicals and that they believe they are putting to practice the precepts of the Jesus they follow. I was once a young radical. I have learned on my faith journey not to question the motives of my brothers and sisters who had the gift of making money or deny them the right chose to use their money to God's glory and purpose. I would welcome to the blog a response by someone who who could write a reasoned and knowledgeable "yes" to the project. Radicals should not want their "no" to stand unchallenged.
What I read in this piece is buildings equal bureaucracy. And of course bureaucracy is bad. I'm more a fan of getting things done and for caring for each other with face to face relationships that reveal Jesus. If a building will facilitate that, it is money well spent. If not, there are much better uses for it. The days of making church policy in a committee around the table at Brother Jake's house have passed.
Tim, I think I share your concerns about becoming mired in institutionalism for it's own sake. But I'd also like to offer a bit of a different perspective. One of the things that needs to be asked is what are we comparing our bureaucracy to. Are we assessing current MCUSA plans in relation to what we've known in the Mennonite church prior to this? Are we assessing it in relationship to the bureaucracy of house churches? Are we assessing it in relation to the Catholic bureaucracy? The U.S. bureaucracy? Our own ideal bureaucracy? In terms of a denominational bureaucracy compared to other denominations, the reality is that MCUSA isn't really that big. There are some really top heavy denominations out there but we're not it. The other thing of concern that I would raise is that it sounds like you are working from a perspective that institutions are fundamentally a bad thing, they are a liability to the work of God. I would question that assumption. Yes, I think we need to continually re-asses any given institutions usefulness, but I'm very glad that bureaucracies like Mennonite Voluntary Service, Mennonite Central Committee, all of the Church Colleges, are Church Conferences and even the bureaucracy of the local church that now employs me as a pastor exist. I don't see these institutions/organizations/bureaucracies as liabilities but rather as assets to the mission of God. It is through these larger organizations that we can come together to live out, as you quote Suderman, the Kingdom of God whose "interests are not narrow but broadly inclusive of all things that impact the welfare of society as well as creation". As for the charge of professionalism. You are right that there is something to be said for the adaptability of any institution to follow God's will, especially the church. However, professionalism is also important. If we're planning on going the separatist route (which is theologically legitimate and I do support that) then rejecting any semblance of worldly professionalism is a fine way to go. However, if we are interested, at a denominational level, in having a presence on the national and world stage in a way in which people will take us seriously, then at least the appearance of professionalism is a key. Make no mistake that our seriousness and professionalism had a hand in helping to get MVS be the first recognized Christian alternative service organization in 25 years (link below). Professionalism is not inherently evil, or antithetical to the Gospel. Yes, it should be kept in check by the Gospel, but they are not opposites. Now, to be fair, I wasn't at the meeting that you were. Had I been, I'm sure I would have a different take on it. I do trust your observations and thank you for raising this question. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying there are some other ways to look at bureaucracy. http://www.themennonite.org/public_press_releases/MVS_to_sign_agreement_with_Selective_Service_
Your comments are a good reminder to be flexible to the leading of the Holy Spirit and to keep a Christ-centered focus as we join in the work God is doing in and through the church. However, what draws me to MC USA are the wonderful institutions established to carry on kingdom work. Perhaps the most radical thing is the ability to see God at work in and through the ordinary: finances, efficiency and professionalism.
Thanks to everyone for your responses.
Tristaanogre, I very much look forwarding to reading your reflection on that chapter in Jesus Matters on the Young Anabaptist Radicals blog.
MWLehman, I'm interested to hear more about what you mean when you use the term radical. You say that you were once a young radical. What did that mean to you then? You also suggest that those managing the building campaign might see themselves as radicals. Can you say what that means? Because this term can be used in so many ways, I'd like to hear what you mean by it. And I agree, I would hope that a good challenge to my argument would take us deeper towards the root of the issue.
Sid, I disagree that buildings equals bureaucracy. Rather the process used in this building campaign brought to the surface for me the role the increasing centrality of institutional values. I don't have any illusions of these values going away overnight. But I wish they could be moved out of the center of our thinking about the future of the church. Can you say any more about your experience of "making church policy in a committee around the table at Brother Jake's house"? Is this something you experienced or heard stories about? I'm very interested in hearing more about people's experience of earlier decision making approaches, good and bad.
Bigstuck, I think of institutions in the framework that Walter Wink uses in talking about the powers: they are good, they are fallen and they are being redeemed. We have to hold all three of these in tension. You are arguing there are situations in which institutions and professionalism are necessary and good. I agree with that completely. They are also fallen and being redeemed.
Roses, I'm glad that you experience MCUSA institutions as carrying out kingdom work. Hallelujah! I recognize that I am only seeing one small part of a very large picture and its good to hear where you see the Holy Spirit working.