• Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:14 PM (CST)
• By PD
• Categories:

It is relatively easy to be a Christian. Perhaps I should clarify; it is relatively easy to be a Christian IF one has an institutional relationship with a church rather than a personal relationship with Jesus.

While there are many categorizations of Christians, some flattering and some not so, one that has manifested itself to me over the years of ministry is this: There are "Institutional Christians" and there are "Personal Christians". The institutional Christian predominantly thinks of their faith as being connected to an institution, typically their church or denomination. The Personal Christian thinks of their faith as being connected to the person of Jesus, and more widely to the Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The practical implications of these two Christian worldviews are wide-ranging. An example surfaced at the weekly women's Bible class I teach. A participant shared that her daughter took part in another church's womens' retreat, during which she heard the Lord's name being taken in vain repeatedly by many participants. Typcial was the use of, "Oh, my God," as an exlamation or even affirmation of another's comment.

Is that such a big deal? I suspect if we were to poll Christians we would find a fairly clean line dividing the faithful into two camps, one seeing little wrong with it and the other being horribly offended by it. How can that be? Simply put, a person who has an institutional faith presents themself as proper in the context of the institution, that is, they are sensitized to correct language, behavior and attitudes (at least tacitly) when interacting with the church. However, whenever outside the church or beyond the reach of supposed church influence they feel free to act in a manner they deem appropriate, even if it is secular, or downright worldly.

This explains why some Christians see drunkenness, course language, or even mild sexual indiscretions as not that big of  a deal. As long as "the church" doesn't find out, or they can keep their church personna intact they feel it does not much damage to them or their faith. They believe they can slip back into the "church mode" and resume their faith activity.

An analogy might suffice to show the mentality of the Institutional Christian. Most adults have a working relationship with a bank or credit union. We consider ourselves tied to that instiution and participants with in commerce, privately or publicly. Yet, not many of us would consider the bank or credit union to have tremendous sway over our personal financial decisions. We use the bank, but we call the shots in our private management of money. Similarly, when a person has an institutional relationship with a church they think of it as their spiritual resource center, a kind of business which caters to their needs. Once outside the sphere of influence of the institution they believe they can adopt a different posture including the above not-so-Christian behavior.

The example of taking the name of God in vain is sadly widespread among Christians. When confronted with the charge of doing so one woman from the conference defended herself, "It may be irreverent but I'm not taking God's name in vain." She is wrong, and incriminated herself by referring to it as "irreverent." Reverence is respect, honor, and in the case of God, worship. IRreverence is disdain, marginalizing and awfully close to mocking God. The Institutional Christian doesn't understand this; for them it's never a personal insult to God because they have not developed the sensitivity which comes from a personal relationship to Jesus. How can using God's name that way hurt the institution, they think, rather than considering the feelings of the One whose name they have abused. 

What is the solution to this problem of Institutional Christians who are blind to the disconnect of their behavior and their profession? One of the surest ways is to help them become Biblically literate; to get them to crack open a Bible, or listen to it, so that the Holy Spriit begins to sensitize them to how their behaviors are seen by God, not "the Church." The challenge is that Institutional Christians figure that they either "know it already," or are apathetic to the Word, thinking it is not so important to be students of it.

We now have several indicators of whether a person has an Institutional faith, including taking the name of the Lord in vain, behavior inconsistent with Christian ideals, and indifference to the Word. I will be clear; I warn those with such attitudes and behaviors to consider carefully, as I don't believe Instiutional Faith ever saved anyone. Case in point, the Israelites in the desert under Moses who had every spiritual conceivable connection to God including visible manifestations of his presence and being fed literally with the food he provided. Nevertheless, that desert generation was rejected by God as stubborn, stiff-necked, and unfit for the Promised Land! It seems they attempted to relate to the "instiution" of Moses and God's leadership rather than to God personally. Jesus also taught stories about people being rejected at the Judgment even though they thought they were participants in his ministry (see Luke 13:22-30).

The lesson is clearly that we should think constantly in terms of our relationship to the Son of God, not an instiution. Sure, Jeusus established his church, but he is its head, the one through whom we must go to get to the Father. If we consider ourselves a serious Christian we will contemplate our behavior and words as they reflect upon Jesus, our living Lord.