Importance of Network Structure

As far as I am aware, no historical denomination has ever been able to fully recover its earlier, more fluid and dynamic movement ethos again.  That's why it is the network structure, where power and responsibility is diffused throughout the organization and not concentrated at the center, that more approximates our real nature and calling as the body of Christ.  A network structure thus guards us from the dangerous creep of religious institutionalism.

Alan Hirsch in The Forgotten Ways, page 188.

Comments

[RICK]

Bringing up the historical aspect makes you stop and really think through it. Great quote.

[Darby Livingston]

I wonder how this quote could be applied to church planting. It seems the same is true of church as well.

[Mark Combs]

Steve,
I am really enjoying the quotes you've been putting up!

Speaking from an SBC perspective, what do you (or anyone else reading this) think some implications are from the above quote for things like local associations, or even state & national level conventions?

[Steve McCoy]

Mark, good question. For some time now I've been thinking about denominations and networks.

I think we need to start thinking outside of the denomination by joining or starting networks that don't function within denominational boundaries. It doesn't mean we have to exit the SBC, or our local associations. But we do need to realize they are often lacking.

I think the churches with the most ability to impact cities and cultures will be connected to networks. Denominational ties can enhance the impact if used wisely.

For example, Acts 29 isn't overflowing with money, but their accountability and coaching structure is good. The SBC has money but weak accountability and coaching. Of course the SBC is stupidly pushing Acts 29 away (at least in some sectors), which is one of the "reasons why I hate us."

I have no intention as an SBC pastor in resurrecting our current associations/conventions. I would rather focus on other networks. My local church has no true network connections, but my friendships in Acts 29 are moving us in that direction.

[JACK]

Forgive me, Steve, but I don't understand the quote. This is not an attack on church planting movements, not at all, just a question because Alan Hirsch doesn't seem to be making sense here.

The quote begins by asserting that no denomination has ever been able to recover its more "fluid, movement" nature that it had in the beginning. Taking that assertion at face value, why does he then conclude from that that the network structure is a more true reflection of who we are as the Body of Christ? That doesn't seem to logically follow. He asserts that all the evidence of history suggests that churches grow into institutions that have more structure and centralization (I'm presuming that this is what he is meaning with his comment of losing the fluidity) and then he concludes from this evidence that that's a drifting away from who we are called to be as member's of Christ's body? I'm all for recognizing the dangers that come to reducing the church down to institutionalism. Those are real. But likewise is there not a danger in reducing the church down to what one might call the charismatic dimension to the exclusion of the institutional? Alan's conclusion seems to be one built on a presumption and not the evidence he cites, because it explains it by dismissing it. It would seem the far more reasonable conclusion to draw from that evidence is that the institutional dimension of the church is unavoidable and is in fact part of her nature.

It may surprise some, but even the churches people think of as too institutional (e.g., Catholic), recognize that the church is not a mere institution. Pope Benedict has a wonderful example of this when he explains that the only true enduring institution in the Catholic Church is that of the office of holy orders, i.e., the ordained priesthood. But it is not a mere institution, for it is a sacrament and the Catholic Church recognizes that you don't just ordain priests because you need more, but that in the very structure of the sacrament there is a charismatic dimension, because God must call men and men must respond to God's call. So the permanent institutional dimension of the Catholic Church is at the same time fundamentally charismatic.

Again, I don't want to make more of a snippet than what's there and I am levying no criticism of church planting movements. But it strikes me that any explanation of the church must account for both factors.

[Steve McCoy]

Jack, that's a long response to a short quote, bro. ;)

I don't really have the time to put this in context for you, and that's probably what it would take to make sense out of what you bring up.

I'll just say that we define Church, church planting, etc, through Scripture and then work to keep it from becoming something else. That's all too common and a reason for the impotence of so much of evangelicalism. You could say historically networks have become institutions, but that doesn't mean they should, which is why we much return to Scripture to understand what we are to be and do.

Hope that helps.

[JACK]

Steve:

I'll let it stand that there's context that I don't have given the short quote. So if that's the disconnect, I'll let it be.

But I have a tough time seeing how saying it all comes down to scripture is responsive. That seems to be more evidence to my point does it not, namely, that the conclusion is based on a presumption and not drawn from the facts he's referencing in this quote, because it essentially dismisses them as an errant development? That's fine and Alan may have reasons for why that's the right conclusion. But it seemed like a key unstated element.