Dilemmas in the Institutionalization of Religion
Thomas O’Dea wrote, “Five Dilemmas in the Institutionalization of Religion” in 1961. Here is a link to the original article. I first learned about this article through the insightful and briliant book, Rejesus: A Wild Messiah For A Missional Church
This is what Hirsch and Frost say on page 69 of the book:
“What happens in the beginning of a movement is that the people encounter the divine in a profound and revelatory way, but with successive generations this encounter tends to fade like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. What begins as a revolutionary, life-transforming, confrontation with Jesus eventually subsides into a codified religion and is subsequently incorporated into normal social life.”
They describe the irresolvable dilemma in this way:
“Although genuine faith is born out of direct encounters with God, it cannot survive and prosper without some form of stability and order. Viewed positively, rituals, creeds, and organizations can help people structure their relationship with God. In fact, we believe this is what they were initially designed for. But unless the worshipper is very wary, the glory of the God encounter will slowly fade and the ritual, creeds, and rules intended to preserve the encounter will take its place.”
Thomas O’Dea, in the article linked to above, points out how consecutive generations tend to construct religious systems to take the place of the original encounter. Thus, the “crisis inevitably dawns when the outward forms of worship no longer match the inward experience and spiritual condition of the participants. Decline becomes inevitable. Authentic Christianity is subverted and constant renewals become necessary.” (Hirsch and Frost, 77).
So what are these five dilemmas the Thomas O’Dea wrote about? I have summarized them below. If you look at the original article, you will see why a summary is helpful! 
1. THE DILEMMA OF MIXED MOTIVATION
In the beginning, in what O’Dea calls the “pre-institutionalized stage” of a religious movement, the disciples are gathered around a charismatic leader and there is only one single motivation. When the movement is stabilized with an institutional matrix, new kinds of motivation arise – needs for prestige, leadership, power, and respect. An example from the New Testament is seen where we read the disciples becoming concerned with who shall be the highest in the kingdom.
Institutions can mobilize all these different kinds of motivation but selection and promotion within the organization must reflect the functional needs of the organization and therefore will not distinguish between the different motivations. The self-interested motivation may prevail leading to its corruption. Mixed motivation is not unique to leadership but changes the composition of its members. With the passing of the founding generation, the religious body now contains people who have not had the original conversion experience. “The selection process which voluntary conversion represented often kept out of the organization precisely the kinds of persons who are now brought up within it.”
2. THE SYMBOLIC DILEMMA: OBJECTIFICATION VERSUS ALIENATION
Our response to the holy is expressed not only in community, but also in worship. However, in order to survive its charismatic moment, worship must become stabilized in established forms. Thus, ritual develops forcing to conform our interior disposition to this symbolic order. So, worship becomes an objective reality that imposes its own patterns upon the participants.
And yet, this “objectification” is necessary for common worship for without it prayer would be individual, not communal. The ritualization which makes it possible to worship in community can become so routinized that it becomes cut off from the experience of the participants. Thus, we have alienation. (I wonder if this is what I see in contemporary church services when participants are text messaging or talking on their cell phones while the worship band plays on.)
“To symbolize the transcendent is to take the inevitable risk of losing the contact with it. To embody the sacred in a vehicle is to run the risk of its secularization. Yet if religious life is to be shared and transmitted down the generations the attempt must be made.” The medium of genuine communication becomes a barrier and an object of aggression. (Could this be the basis for the “worship wars”, the denomination rifts, or the strong feelings invoked by some by the words, Emergent, Charismatic, Evangelical, or Institutional Church?)
3. THE DILEMMA OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
Charismatic leadership quickly changes into a traditional structure consisting of a chief and an administrative staff. Precedents are established, new offices and roles are formed, new communication protocols and soon the structure is in danger of complicating itself. “The tendency or organization to complicate itself to meet new situations often transforms it into an awkward and confusing mechanism within whose context is it difficult to accomplish anything.”
4. THE DILEMMA OF DELIMITATION: CONCRETE DEFINITION VERSUS SUBSTITUTION OF LETTER FOR SPIRIT
In order to have an impact on our lives, religious insights must be translated into terms relevant for everyday life. These terms, however elaborate, or however gifted the communicator maybe be, can’t make explicit all that is implied in the original insight or experience. A similar thing happens when you try to explain a dream or a wonderful experience to someone. Your words can never fully encapsulate your original experience. And yet we must try or the experience will be lost by others. The risk is that it may end up being reduced too much which would lead to a deadening legalism.
5. THE DILEMMA OF POWER: CONVERSION VERSUS COERCION
The propagation of Christianity involves an interior “change” or “conversion”. This decision is the beginning of the religious life for the individual. “With institutionalization of the religious movement, such a conversion may be replace by the socialization of the young so that a slow process of education and training substitutes for the more dramatic experience.” Of course, this kind of socialization often paves the way for conversion. Since religion depends on this interior disposition of the individuals who are vulnerable to outside influences, there is a temptation to use the close relation or similarities between religion and societal values to reinforce the religion. The organization, in its search for power, is often co-opted by the very forces it seeks to control.
Those are the five dilemmas written about in the article, “Five Dilemmas in the Institutionalization of Religion”. The article takes a long time to wade through so I hope it benefits you to have my brief synopsis here. I searched for a summary but couldn’t find one so hopefully this one will suffice for now. If, after reading the article, you have something to add or can word it better than I, let me know and I would be glad to include it here!
Again, comments are always welcome and not moderated.
Comments
Your link doesn’t work but I googled it and found it. It’s full of a whole lot of socialogical gargon. Thank you for the summary. I did read the intro and found one of his assumptions about institutionalism which I believe has no basis in Christianity. “In other words, religion both needs most and suffers most from institutionalization.” The second half of this is correct. The household of faith suffers much from institutionalism. A very high percentage of believer’s faith is severely warped or retarded by it’s bogus expectations. (I say very high percentage because there is a small percentage out there who out grow it’s constraints yet reamain in it.) The first part is false. There is no need or requirement for institutionalism in accomplishing the work of God. Through out the NT there are many scriptures that teach us that the principles required by institutionalism violate God’s instructions, or as Jesus told the Pharisees “nullify the commands of God for the sake of your tradition”. God’s grace is greater than the sins of institutionalism, but that is no reason to continue depending on it. There is more grace and reward for obeying God’s instructions. I know that most of those in the system have some proof texts to justify institutionalism. The sad part is that they will not examin them to see the error nor listen to anyone who seeks to show them. My brother in law is a missionary in the Philippines planting institutional churches. He tries to convince me he agrees with me, but he really doesn’t because at some point, every church he is involved with will be insitutionalized at some point. In his view, a church is not “mature” until it is institutionalized.
What good does it do the church for a sociologist to reherse difficulties of institutionalism if he reinforces their addiction that insitutionalism is a required dynamic? Only the scriptures (God’s revelation) can show someone what is required for the church and what the church should avoid. Only it has the power of a double-edged sword to penetrate the soul.
“Although genuine faith is born out of direct encounters with God, it cannot survive and prosper without some form of stability and order. Viewed positively, rituals, creeds, and organizations can help people structure their relationship with God.”
Genuine faith CAN survive, prosper and reproduce without stability and order forms designed by man. The NT calls for very simple organic / relational dynamics that are natural to physical and spiritual life. They need no additions, substitutions, or man driven “improvements” that we claim work better because we are “progressive” and relativize God’s revelation as “He never gave specific instructions for His church – He left it up to us”.
“Rituals, creeds, and organization” are shallow, flesh oriented substitutes for the wind oriented (John 3:8) work of the Spirit. God asks us to “walk by faith not by sight”. Men prefer a walk by sight rather than by faith. Pyramid oriented leadership structures are a sight oriented substitute for the unpredictable example / servant driven leadership dynamic given to us by God. Men today, just like the Israelites of old want a human king they can see, rather than God’s direct leadership design which they cannot see.
I have a question regarding O’Dea’s sociological piece. I did not want to wade through the jargon. Does he only refer to the process of breakdown in the authentic qualities of faith as natural processes that cannot be helped, or does he actually acknowledge the powers of aggressive Satanic deceptive schemes and sinful weakness of human nature which can be twarted and resisted with the Spirit’s power? I don’t know if this guy is a secularist or not, but secularist academics cannot acknowledge these three powerful elements that God has told us are active in every element of man’s life.
Thank you for the summary and for your own side notes , which were interesting on their own. I felt , as you did, that it is the alienation of church members that has led to their blase attitude during the “worship time”.
I struggle often because I am a woman who outgrew her own need for traditional churches and yet still sees a clear need for them. I have decided to remain within my church and yet become involved in the remnant who seeks deeper, higher things in a small group setting.
The proliferation of derogatory terms for the traditional church saddens me…”institutional church”, “theologically based businesses”, “one stop shopping for the soul”. We need to accept that some will thrive as free-believers and others within the traditions and ceremonies that bring them close to God.
Thank you for always striving to be fair.
Cynthia
No we don’t need to accept mediocrity or lukewarmness, that only “some” are “thriving”. God does not accept it. He has designed a system where ALL will thrive. And at what cost does it take them to “thrive”? Institutional forms demand that 75 – 85% of the “giving” be consumed by the “givers”. This is pooling not even giving. Giving goes beyond the giver. Putting money in the offering plate to buy a professionally prepared sermon and a special building for you and others who have a great need to participate rather than spectate is tragic! It keeps God’s people happy yet lazy and very dumbed down from God’s design.
I am not surprised that you would see anything that challenges the authenticity of institutionalized forms as “proliferation of derogatory terms”. From the very beginning of church Satan has brought in many false and idolatrous beliefs. Paul soundly refuted them such as the Galatian, Colossian and Corinthian churches. God’s Word is inspired for the specific purpose of “rebuke and correction” so that ALL may be THOROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work. If the saints are not accomplishing this, they are not thriving. Do not look at what is said as negative or positive towards a church system. Look at what is said towards a church system as to whether it is true or false. Truth is often negative. Don’t try and protect sin that looks and feels good or has a mediocre amount of light. One of my favorite quotes is “the great danger is not that we will renounce our faith but that we will settle for a mediocre version of it.” If the Devil can lure God’s people into passivity via one-way communication instead of the participative two-way communication God has specifically asked for (Heb. 10:24,25; Col. 3:16, etc) than he has become successful.
Tim
That was an intense response! I was amused when you wrote
“I am not surprised that you would see anything that challenges the authenticity of institutionalized forms as “proliferation of derogatory terms”.
Tim, If you knew the journey I have been on you would indeed be surprised. I have spent quite a while outside the traditional walls of the church. I very much see the merits of the house church movement. But I was led back into the traditional church setting recently, not out of guilt but because God led me back.
Those who prefer the free believer or house church route will sometimes use the tern “institution” to describe the traditional church setting. I say it is derogatory because that word has come to be associated with negative experiences…such as “institutional day care” “institutional seniors housing”. It infers a cold, business like setting in which there is a lack of care and relationship.
Some mega churches may be that way. But America is filled with wonderful small churches that do the work of God in many ways.
Cynthia
I read what you said about being out of the institutional church for awhile and how you “out grew your need for it” . That is a good step. Yet you fail to see how it contradicts God’s design or “life orientation” for Christ’s body. It doesn’t matter whether mega or mini. If it has at least one hired expert who will have to be replaced with another when he leaves, and a special building set up for one-way communication to dominate, then you have the essentials of the institutional system that forces believers stewardship of money, relationships, and spiritual gifts to be largely squandered, instead of reproductive. I don’t question that the saints in the system are sincere, friendly, and loving to a certain extent. I don’t question that God works in this system because He is full of grace that is long suffering and forbearing towards our sin and the weights that hinder us from running the race He has marked out for us. But none of these nice things should keep us from fully obeying all of His instructions for life in Christ, or re-examining the traditions handed down to us to see if they are true. Acts 17:11
I gave you above a couple specific examples of severe corruption in the system. You have not responded to them. You merely continue to try and help me see how caring and relational a small institutional church can be. Is it caring to devote 75 – 85% of your giving to buy services and facilities for yourselves? Is it relational to line up in pews for platform driven “worship” that contradicts God’s gifting of EVERYONE to participate through their gifts and 24/7 worship the previous 6 days of the week?
I hope it’s okay to be intense about the household of faith.
Joel – I have a question about the “irresolvable dilemma” quote. Are they saying we’re stuck with institutionalism, and the only solution is to be wary and have constant renewal? Something makes me feel like the authors are still looking out from inside a box. Sometimes with these authors who work with “emerging” or “missional” churches, I get the feeling they are still trying to justify and find a use for the forms they have chosen. But I haven’t read ReJesus and could be way off base. What do you think?
Cynthia – I see your heart, and I think you’re called to follow Jesus. If Jesus leads you back to the club, then so be it. We walk into clubs and institutions every day to meet people and share life; it doesn’t mean you’re selling out. Don’t be dismayed or get caught up in doctrinal arguments.
Andy
That is exactly it! I was led back into a “club”. It looks like one and it feels like one so why am I there? Well when God called me back I told Him that I was afraid of getting all caught up in the busyness again…all the trappings that come with a “club” setting. God told me that my specific calling there is to pray for the pastor and for the people. He desires to become relevant to them so that they, in turn , can become relevant in the world. Can I demand that the whole congregation disband and leave the “insitution” in order to become vibrant and useful? Of course I can’t. Can I dictate the way they need to gather? No I can’t. But I cry out for them…as I am called to.
God also specifically told me that I am not to sign up for leading anything or to be part of a committee etc. My purpose there is to PRAY for that part of the body and that the building (small and irrelevant as it now is) will become a place where those who need Christ, will find Him reflected, preached and lived out. That is His will for me. It was and is not, my preference. But in laying down my life and picking up the cross, I don’t always get to ge where it feels good!
Tim
It is commanded that we be intense about the household of faith!
If I were a hardcore “institutional” believer I would be trying my best to point out your need to rejoin the “club”. But I see that you have been led in another direction and I rejoice that you are where God woudl have you…a free believer within the body. Why can’t you grant me the same grace?
Cynthia
I’ve never objected to you going to an institutional church to do whatever God want there. Sometimes God calls me to walk in the door of one to encourage the saints there. My only objection is to what I perceive you saying it’s wrong to point out the errors, specify the deception for what it is, and that the errors aren’t really that bad so let’s all be nice about it. God is doing somethings in the institutional forms so that must mean God likes it. I’m just trying to help you see the errors there are grotesque and God is grieved by it. He cannot give out rewards for wood, hay or stubble. He wants us to produce gold.
Of course it’s a good thing to know and pray for the saints.
Of course it’s not a good idea to “demand that the whole congregation disband…”
There are many more options that God has called us all to do
1. Spur one another on to love and good works Heb. 10:24,25
2. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you… Col. 3:16,17
You can do organic church inside the walls… face to face and heart to heart.
“The closer the contact the more powerful the impact.”
You can lead saints, one by one, by your example, into ministry outside the walls. Ministry to the lost on their turf adds far more relevancy than any fine tuned “relevancy expert” can produce inside the walls.
You will see more how God wants to work through you as you understand better the schemes of the enemy. I’m hoping I have been helpful even though direct.
Hi Tim,
Yes, it IS hard to wade through the article. That is precisely why I thought it would be helpful to include a very brief summary of it here.
To answer your question . . . no, he doesn’t discuss sin, powers of darkness or anything related. He approaches the topic from a sociological perspective and focuses on the institutionalization process. Although, that would be an interesting conversation to have sometime.
Cynthia, I think I understand well what you are saying. There was a time when I thought differently, but I do see a place for traditional churches. I should elaborate on that “place” here but I am finding it hard to be concise. Perhaps after I have thought of a good way to word what I am thinking, I can add that here as well.
Andy, Konnichiwa! No they are not saying we are stuck with institutionalism. (The book is GREAT, by the way.) They are pointing the out some of the problems with it. I don’t get the impression that they are looking from “inside the box” at all. There is a cool blog for the book and you can find it by google I’m sure you would enjoy it. Also, other essays by Alan Hirsch are posted at shapevine.com He’s a sharp thinker!