D July 25th, 2008
I talk a lot about the “corporate” Christian church. I want to define what I mean by this term. There are several different definitions of corporate, and the one most used is in reference to a Christian gathering:
2: of, relating to, or formed into a unified body of individuals
We would use this sometimes in the context of “corporate worship” or a “corporate service” where all are gathered together.
When I say the “corporate” Christian church, I am referring more to the business hierarchy that most denominations, sects, and groups employ. Closer to this definition:
1d: having qualities (as commercialism or lack of originality) associated with large corporations or attributed to their influence or control
I suppose the first task is to demonstrate why a large corporate approach is less similar than it should be to Christ’s original vision for the church. In order put these ideas into an appropriate context, we need to consider the backgrounds of the people that compose these churches. We need to understand their cultures, and frame our analysis appropriately. So, let’s start at North American culture.
Considering the wide breadth of known human history, modern North American culture is just about to enter its terrible two’s. We have only been relevant for the last 200 years, and this is the version of North American culture I will examine.[1] We have grown from a diverse group of immigrants into a democratic society, with aggressive capitalist tendencies. Without casting any larger-worldview judgment on capitalism, it has served us very well, and created great wealth for many people in our society. This approach to government and economy has largely affected our societal worldviews, and as such we have integrated it into our major religion – Christianity.
With the capitalist approach comes a commonly accepted business structure, with the central tenet being that the leaders are there to serve the owners. In a modern public company, the leadership is beholden to the shareholders – effectively to the stock price. This creates a form of checks-and-balances between the owners, but often does not address the concerns of those outside this system. It is an inward focused approach. Free market capitalism argues that the market will dynamically adjust itself to serve all people outside of these closed systems. Of course, there are government agencies that will enforce regulation to some degree to affect how these organizations operate, and lobbyists and activists that will attempt to use public opinion to push an organization in a particular direction, but the system largely is set up to cater to corporations.
This business structure and capitalist worldview has been integrated into most major North American church denominations. There are some differences in ownership (of church assets), and management, but largely they are based on the business models gleaned from capitalism. And, like its business-world cousins, it is a largely successful system that has generated a lot of wealth for these churches. And the denominational leadership serves as an oversight committee, or perhaps a trade group that is effectively monitoring and regulating the members of its industry.
So what’s wrong with that?
It places restrictions on visionary thinking within the denominational organization, creating a bureaucracy that can limit appropriate reactions to our ever-changing culture. Ideas that were established decades ago are still prevalent, despite them being largely (and sometimes laughably) obsolete. These entrenched ideas were once culturally influenced decisions that keep denominations stagnant in their approach to doctrine and theology. As such, it discourages out of box thinking and avoids reconsideration of the currently accepted interpretations of biblical texts. In a way, the denominational ‘law’ allows a large percentage of its membership to be apathetic to further questioning of their beliefs and approaches – avoid critical thinking.
In most cases, the only way to innovate within a denomination is at a grassroots level, and generally involves the members to act somewhat outside of the established norms of the denomination. And it can (and does) happen, and creates some fantastic communities. However, these communities are the exception as opposed to the rule within denominational structures.
Christian mass-market industry? Is that what Jesus was teaching?
Ultimately, I see a system that discourages personal growth by claiming to be an authority. I’m sure there is some sort of sociological explanation for this type of human behavior, but in a word: apathy. My opinion is that Christ’s teachings were for personal use, to be applied to a persons worldview and decision making process. Not for commercial use, with groups of ‘experts’ creating regulatory constructs under which the congregational members fall.
Post-Denomination
I am advocating a post-denominational approach to Christ’s teachings. A return to personal responsibility in discovering the truth’s of Christ’s message, and being honest with those who you are in fellowship as to where you are in your journey to emulate Christ. A climate that does not incite fear as a result of going against the status quo, but rather encourages theological and doctrinal discourse. And beyond that – tolerates differing viewpoints while maintaining critical thinking skills to protect the body at large. We need to teach ourselves to think, and to follow Christ – not the teachings of denominations and their leaders.
I see this post-denominational culture as having “service organizations” that provide liaison services between the government and the church for charity purposes. They will also provide financial service to small groups of churches that want to pool their resources to tackle larger projects, in their cities and elsewhere – to affect real change. And the service organizations will use a wider lens to include many Christ-following churches with different disciplines, encouraging unity between what used to be a very segregated group of churches. They will arbitrate the more complex disputes, and provide oversight to the resolution process. And finally, they will facilitate accountability between the leaders of the churches (not accountability with the organization itself), forcing them to constantly re-evaluate their ideas and practices before teaching them to their congregations.
One foreseeable objection is that pastors may still teach heretical or inaccurate messages to their congregations, and to that I say this: it shouldn’t matter. If the members of these churches are autonomous in their thinking, comparing, and discernment, they will be able to hold the pastor to account or at least hold a public discourse that brings everybody to a shared understanding of opinions.
We like to look at ‘mainline’ denominations, in all their varying degrees of doctrines and theology, and generally accept that this corporate business model is “the best way to do things”. I am beginning to question (and hopefully eventually challenge) that idea. And of course, as would be appropriate to some of the ideas presented above, I welcome constructive criticism – which I will analyze earnestly, and perhaps integrate into my understanding of Christ’s church and how that looks in our culture.
1. [As an aside, I am aware there is a rich Aboriginal culture that dominated the North American continent prior to colonization, however it has been largely washed away over the last 200 years. Such cultural extermination is a huge subject that is entirely out of the scope of this essay.]
2. The primary reason democratic capitalism works so well is that it forces us to leverage our greed against each other prevent any one person from becoming the dictator. This turns our human nature from resolving things with violence to resolving things with money. Of course, the gap between rich an poor will likely continue to grow in this system, as greed is essentially a bad thing. But now I’m rambling..
Tags: Christianity, Religion