The Church and Its Institutions in Partnership
Michael Sherer, given at Berkey Avenue Mennonite Fellowship 7/12/98

Like so many people at Berkey Avenue, I work for an institution of the church. This is hardly surprising, since Elkhart county is home to MMA, MBM, AMBS, Goshen College, Bethany, Indiana Michigan Conference, Mennoheim, Mennonite Board of Education, Mennonite Disabilities Committee, MBCM, to name but a few. These institutions educate our young, treat our sick, provide service opportunities, develop church leaders, meet human need, spread the gospel and do all manner of other good things. But that doesn’t necessarily guarantee that we always feel good about these institutions. We, like most other Americans approach our institutions with considerable ambivalence. That ambivalence is even reflected in our language. Let’s play a little game. I want you to rate three words on a positive/negative scale. If you feel positive about the word lean to the right, if you feel negative about it, lean to the left, if you’re ambivalent just sit up straight. Got it? First word: Institution. That one could go either way--to say that someone is an institution is a compliment, connoting a larger than life stature and long years of service, but being locked up in an institution is not so good. Second word: Institutional. Not much positive there. Call someone’s home or cooking institutional and don’t expect to be invited back. Third word: Institutionalize. I think we’re beginning to see a pattern here. Nobody wants to be institutionalized, and institutionalized religion is practically an oxymoron, bringing up visions of cold, lifeless churches, made up of people going through the motions of worship, with little connection to a living God. So how should we as church members feel about our church institutions, and what can we who work for these institutions do to ensure that they serve, lead and reflect the church that created them?

Let’s look at our Bibles. I chose Acts 6:1-7 for today’s sermon text because it represents one of the earliest recorded examples of institutionalizing the church. In the first chapters of Acts, the church bursts on the scene at Pentecost and experiences explosive growth. The apostles preach, heal, are persecuted and preach some more--it’s an organic process. But in chapter six, the tone changes. Verse 1 reads “In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against those of the Aramaic-speaking community because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.” The first thing that is significant here is that the number of disciples is increasing--the church is growing. And like any new, growing organization, the new church found itself outgrowing the informal structures that had arisen in its first days. A problem arose and it’s a serious one. The grecian jews are complaining about unfair treatment. Unless this is dealt with quickly, sensitively and effectively, this could split the church with potentially disastrous results. The apostles are surely capable of handling this themselves, but the task of preaching the word and building up the church looms large. It’s important work and they cannot neglect it. In verse 2, the apostles gather the church together, explain this, and offer up a solution. Verse 3: “Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” There are a couple interesting things going on here. First, there’s delegation happening on a couple of levels. The apostles delegate the task of choosing the Seven to the congregation, and in turn, delegate the task of waiting tables to the Seven. Second, there’s gift discernment. The congregation is to select people known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. In verse 5 we read that this proposal pleased the whole group--Jews and Greeks--and they proceeded to identify seven leaders, who are subsequently commissioned by the apostles for their task. The crisis is averted and in verse 7 we see the results--”The word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” The church had a growth problem, its leadership created an institution to deal with it, the Seven, selected by the congregation, the crisis was averted, and the church continued its rapid growth.

This is the modest, positive beginning of a tradition of institution-building that would serve and sustain the church for the next 2000 years. The great institutions of our society, universities, hospitals, mental health institutions, insurance companies, and others, had their genesis in or have been significantly influenced by the church. At their best, our church’s institutions are the incarnation of our purest beliefs and highest values. They nurture us, challenge us, care for us, inspire us, lead us, work for us, and serve in our name in our communities and around the world. They derive their strength from the church and in turn strengthen the church.

But that’s only half the story. Our world is full of institutions which have lost their connection to the churches that started them. There are also plenty of examples of institutions which are poorly run, ineffective, corrupt, dysfunctional or even malevolent. Even our church institutions bear the stamp of human frailty. Whatever foibles are present in our church community are going to show up in our institutions sooner or later. And so our ambivalence, while lamentable, is often understandable. We who work in church institutions have learned that we cannot take the support of the church for granted. In an era of expanding choices, you can easily send your children to Goshen High or IU instead of Bethany or Goshen College, buy your insurance from Aetna or State Farm not MMA, send your dollars to a TV ministry not the Mission Board, and many people do. But let’s not kid ourselves, our shifting patronage is not without a cost. I think a business analogy is apt here. I’ve been finishing my basement for the past several months and during that time I’ve spent many hours shopping at Lowe’s, a modern-day wonder of American commerce for the do-it-yourself crowd. I like Lowe’s--its return policies are good, its prices are low, the breadth of products is bewildering--but when it came time to paint, I went downtown to Snyder Paints and I was struck by the difference. I bought my paint from the owner. I got expert advice. I probably got a better product. But most importantly, I patronized someone with an investment in the community. I patronized someone who is a leader in the community at multiple levels; someone who will likely give a portion of the profits to this church. Going back to our institutions, it’s not that other people’s institutions are bad--quite the contrary. Our community and nation are blessed with many, many fine institutions. But when we patronize other people’s institutions, we must realize that something valuable, something important is lost.

Because we live in an environment of rapid technological, social and cultural change and fierce competition, I have been forced contemplate the death of our church’s institutions. Any combination of external competition, poor leadership, changing demographics, economic hardship, or changing values in the church could spell the end of any of them. This is not a pleasant thought. I believe that the death of the church’s institutions would threaten the long-term survival Mennonite Church itself. I spent some time last night talking to our resident historian John Roth and he described the 20th century as a grand experiment for Mennonites with institution building--a time when the church tied its success and its survival to its institutions. We both agreed that from our late 20th century perspectives it has been, with few exceptions, a wildly successful experiment. Without its institutions, it is hard to imagine the North American Mennonite Church enjoying the relative health and vitality it does today.

Let’s do a little object lesson on the role of Mennonite institutions in our lives:
I’d like you to stand if you’ve ever:
o pastored a Mennonite Church
o been to a Mennonite Youth Convention
o done a term of service with MCC or a Mennonite Mission Board
o attended a Mennonite elementary or secondary school
o attended a Mennonite College
o worked for a Mennonite Institution
Let’s see, what to do I have to do to get the rest of you standing....
o you’re under the age of 15 or you married a Mennonite...

This rather nicely illustrates the influence of Mennonite institutions in our lives.

I’m aware that for some of you, that influence has not been wholly positive, or perhaps even quite negative, and we need to explore that too. The church doesn’t just need institutions, it needs institutions that reflect its values, that are accountable, that are in dialog over the needs of the church community and how best to meet them, that model faith in the workplace. All our institutions fall short of these ideals by degrees, but how do we keep them moving towards them? I think our Bible passage contains a simple but important answer: Reading from Acts 6:5 “Choose seven from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.” Full of the Spirit and wisdom. Whatever organization we are a part of, the people we choose to be our leaders have a significant impact on where we end up. The leaders of our institutions must be full of the Spirit because the temptation to seek independence and security for the institution at the expense of its relationship to the church is very strong. One need only look at the Ivy League schools, most of which began as denominational schools, for confirmation of this. But being full of the Spirit is not enough, our institutional leaders must be full of wisdom. I often say that the success of Goshen College is dependent on a thousand good decisions. It’s probably more like 10,000. Being an institutional leader in this day and age requires uncommon wisdom. Our leaders all need our prayers daily. Let me say it again, our institutional leaders must be full of wisdom and full of the Spirit. Having anything less risks either the failure of the institution on the one hand, or the loss of the institution’s Christian character on the other.

I have talked a lot about survival here, and if you think I’ve painted a fairly grim picture of things, it’s because I believe the threats to the church and its institutions are real. We could loose it all due to complacency, bungling, or our collective lack of faithfulness. But I have a vision for the future which is far brighter than the scenarios I’ve been describing. It is a vision of the church and its institutions thriving together in partnership. I like to say that the success of Goshen College is dependent on the quality of its program, the quality of its people and the quality of its relationships. Relationships are the key to this bright future. In it, the church and its institutions have acknowledged their need for each other and for God, and that their long-term health and survival is dependent on their ability to collaborate on ways to more effectively meet the needs of the church community and advance the kingdom. They share ideas, resources, and expertise, they promote each other programs, they find new exciting ways to work together, institutions renew their commitment to the church and the church in turn renews its commitment to its institutions. New generations of Spirit-filled leaders are raised up, and the future of the church and its institutions is secure in even more capable hands than ours today.

Maribel Kraybill, long-time principal at Locust Grove Mennonite School, had a favorite Bible passage, Ecclesiastes 4:12, which says “a three-fold cord is not easily broken.” For Maribel, those cords were the home, the school and the church. In the vision I described, the cords are God, the church and its institutions. The church and its institutions working together in service to God and by the grace of God, does indeed make a strong cord. I invite you to join me in the work of binding them together for a brighter future.

#