Protecting an Institution

In a conversation with someone recently, she stated there are different ways of dealing with problems--patiently, working within the system for change, or impatiently, going outside the system to attack it. Her point was that it was always best to work within the system.

Some would argue this is biblical, as even Jesus said he did not come to overthrow the law, but to fulfill it. He explicitly did not want to usurp the authority of the Roman or Jewish governing bodies. But did he really work within those institutions to evoke change?

This issue was a central debate in the Protestant Reformation. For many people who agreed with Luther's criticisms, they recoiled at the thought of separating from the Roman Catholic Church, saying it was better to change it from within. Virtually all of Luther's reforms were adopted by the Catholic Church, albeit a century later. Most Protestants today, though, are quite happy about the Protestant split, thinking it was necessary.

Last week, I talked about the balance of peaceful dialogue versus active criticism. I think, once again, that there is balance here. Using the example of Luther, he did, in fact, try to work within the Catholic Church's systems to create the appropriate and needed change. When he no longer believed that was possible, he then led an assault on the institution, calling for a split.

I personally agree with this approach. It is great if we can reform institutions from within. There is so much manpower, capital, organization, etc., that can continue to be used for good (and not have to be redone for developing something new). Yet there comes a point at which an institution has gone so far in the wrong direction that it is beyond hope of salvation and the reset button needs to be pushed.

A while ago, I wrote a personal reflection on the events surrounding the Crystal Cathedral. I saw its implosion from the inside. And while several us tried some things to fight for it from within our section of the Cathedral, I got to the point where I predicted and hoped for its demise. The Penner-Coleman group had become so focused on maintaining the institution that they lost sight of the true purpose of the organization.

When an institution is more focused on self-preservation than its true purpose, then major problems have arrived.

I cannot imagine loving an institution as much I had the Cathedral, yet I voted for our group to leave it and become its own congregation. I continue to follow the news and proceedings of the Cathedral with sadness, but with a sense of comfort that the dangers of institutional self-preservation are no longer wrecking havoc.

While I continue to desire to hold internal reformation as the ideal, I am willing to see institutions close when they no longer live according to their values and purpose.

What about you? When, if ever, would you vote for an institution to close?

Love or Justice? @markgalli @randyalcorn @christianaudio

I'm currently listening to the audiobook version of Mark Galli's God Wins, a response to Rob Bell's Love Wins. I started writing some responses while I'm listening to it, so I don't forget them all. I wrote so much in response to just the preface, I thought I would post this first, especially since the preface wasn't Galli's work at all and so should be somewhat separated from his review.

Randy Alcorn wrote the preface to Galli's book, and it actually sets a quite negative tone. One of the things I appreciated about Galli was that he stated he is not criticizing Rob Bell or what Bell believes, but simply what the book, Love Wins, says. I think this is a fair attempt at taking the personal attack feel out of a discussion. Unfortunately, Alcorn's writing seems to take jabs at Bell along the lines of what DeYoung, Piper, and others have done.

Like many of the neo-Calvinists, Alcorn emphasizes the role of justice in Christ's sacrifice. He (and Galli) at times, present love and justice as mutually exclusive. However, Galli does properly state that this depends on how one defines love. I would add that it also depends on how one defines justice. Yes, love without guidance is not all that loving.

However, Galli, Alcorn, and many people seem to equate justice with punishment. Just like love without consequences is a very anthropocentric idea, so is punishment-focused justice. Our emphasis on fairness and forensic-like exactitude is not necessarily theocentric. In fact, it flies in the face of most of God's most explicit commands about justice (Jubilee, anyone?). What if forgiveness- and grace-centered love is the true definition of justice?

While Galli doesn't really use this perspective explicitly, Alcorn argues that Bell and others forsake the straightforward meaning of Scripture. Personally, this argument is something that drives me nuts. There is no such thing as a straightforward meaning, particularly of the Bible. Everything takes interpretation, especially when it was written thousands of years ago. Even something contemporary, being read within the culture it was intended for, takes interpretation. Love Wins is a perfect example. Galli says Bell's book says some things that I simply do not see in it. We have interpreted it differently. And Bell is one of the more straightforward authors out there. If something like this takes interpretation, there's really no legitimacy in reading the Bible from a "straightforward meaning" perspective.

Alcorn also criticizes Bell's book for disregarding historical church doctrine. This argument itself is controversial, as there is substantial evidence that a wideness of God's grace has been held by many influential Christians over the centuries. But yes, official doctrine has been rather narrow. The thing I find ironic about this is that it is Protestants, often those who who hold the label of "Reformed," who emphasize this argument. The Catholic Church used this exact same argument against Luther and other Reformers. As Galli says, newer isn't always better. Older and traditional isn't always better, either.

As humans, we are fallible. That means our theology is fallible. I hope our theology improves over the centuries. The theology of the Hebrews and Israelites certainly did. That doesn't make latter people better, but they did learn from their ancestors. We need to be wise about our theology. That means giving serious weight to the thought that came before us. But it also means taking a critical look at it.

Galli is much fairer in his part of the book, and Alcorn states how open-minded and fair Galli has always been. This is one of the things I have appreciated about his writing over the years. However, thus far into the book, it would have been much better without the preface.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”