Institutionalization

by David Witthoff

One of the growing concerns in the western Salvation Army seems to be institutionalization. I’ve seen a lot people become very concerned with the future of the Army and the direction that we are headed in - or perhaps, from their perspective, the lack of direction. It occurs to me, though, that the identity crisis we are experiencing is only a symptom of institutionalization, which is what so many today are fighting against.

But here’s the kicker: our task at this time is not to fight institutionalization in our Army, but to figure out how we will institutionalize, because it is inevitable.

This is how we know institutionalization is inevitable: it happens to all organizations. Any founder of a country, social club, group, organization or whatever else forms his group within a cultural context. While the founder is alive, and perhaps also through the time of his direct followers, the organization enjoys exponential growth and is deeply committed to its principles. As the culture changes, the founder and his followers can guide the group in the right course of action.

The trouble comes when the founder and his followers pass on. When this happens, and when the culture changes, the organization is left to navigate the right course of action without the guidance of the one who started it. All that they can do is hope to follow what he left behind, but this is not always easy. This is where the identity crisis starts.

We can see that this is where the Army is at by looking for a few signs of this institutional “crisis.” First, we can expect (and it is most assuredly started already) some kind of a fundamentalist resurgence. It is very likely that part of the organization will rigidly look back to the founder - to anything he said and did - and desperately try to emulate and recreate the glory days.

While this is a laudable response to the identity crisis, it fails in one major respect. Institutionalization in the first place is due to changes in the culture that differ radically from the time of the founder. Trying to return to the past will most probably fail because of the differences of the times. Fundamentalism of most kinds also tends to alienate most of the moderates within the organization. As such, the fundamentalists usually break off or never become the dominant representation of the whole (we broke of from the Methodists in this way!).

We may also expect, either as a direct response to institutionalization, or as a response to the fundamentalist resurgence, a modernist/progressive development. Those that recognize the cultural differences and desire to move forward will probably be labeled as some form of “progressives.” This group will desire the organization to move beyond the direct desires of the founder and to chart a new course. By recognizing the new culture and the new needs of the people, they will attempt to break with the old ways in an attempt to meet the new problems of the day.

If taken too far, though, this progressive movement becomes in danger of a different type of identity crisis: namely, a loss of identity. Without the memory of why the organization was started and a determination to uphold those same goals, the organization will lose its identity all together and cease to be what it was.

The job before us today is not to prevent or fight against the institutionalization of The Salvation Army, but to guide it as it moves through this phase. I call upon you to watch out for the two responses of fundamentalism and progressivism and to find the balance between the two. What we need of is a balance of both: a recognition of what made us who we are with a forward-looking mindset to deal with the problems of the day.  If we fail, it will be because we divided along fundamentalist/progressive lines.  Don’t take such labels as your own, for the best way to defeat an army is to divide it into two.

Writer: David Witthoff is a Salvationist from the Oakbrook Terrace Corps. He recently graduated from the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago with a BA in Pastoral Ministry. Currently he lives in Hamilton, Massachusetts, USA where he is working towards a Master of Arts in Old Testament and a Master of Arts in Biblical Languages at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. David enjoys writing music, exegeting, sci-fi tv shows, running, soccer, languages and talking about the Army with his friends. His hope is to be the best soldier, officer, student and teacher of the scripture that he can be.

2 Comments to Institutionalization

1. My angle (http://www.eveningbeaches.blogspot.com/) is that Institutional church might be effective at delivering social programmes, but making disciples is relational work and simply cannot be done by an institution. I cannot see how institutional church can work if the emphasis in the future church is to move to disciplemaking with social action integrated into that journey/process rather than compartmentalised alongside it.
   Warmest blessings for Christmas and New Year!
Eleanor Burne-Jones on December 23rd, 2008

2. Eleanor,

   I think we may be thinking about institutionalization in different ways. In practice, it is really just any aspect of our church where we continue traditions and practices not for their original sake, but because we want to continue them. Culture changes, and we don’t have the guidance of original leaders (and perhaps we don’t want to change anyway), so we institutionalize, making some aspect of practice our permanent tradition.

   In this article I hoped to communicate the danger of fundamentalist and progressive responses to institutionalization but also the correctives they do offer.

   “institutional church” in your sense is not quite what I’m looking at, because the institutional aspect I was writing about concerns cultural aspects within the organization rather than the whole itself.

   I hope I understood you correctly here. Feel free to correct me if need be.

   Dave
David Witthoff on December 24th, 2008

Leave a comment