For about the first 270 years of its existence, the Christian Church was a viral movement of the Spirit. It spread like a beautiful, healthy virus from person to person. But then the most significant event in the history of Christianity occurred, the Edict of Milan, in 313 AD. With one sweep of his quill, Emperor Constantine turned a viral movement of the Spirit into a human institution.[1] The church went from being viral to something that no longer spread and grew like a living organism. It changed from Christianity to Christendom. The Christian Church remained an institution for 1,636 years. It growth was difficult, sporadic and hard to maintain. Often, like the current condition of the Western Church, we lost ground.
The church became accustomed to its institutionalism. It even got to the point of thinking that institutionalism was right and good; even though it is not proscribed or even described or hinted at in the New Testament. Institutionalism became like a backpack full of bricks. We have never experienced life without our familiar Christendom bricks and eventually could not imagine life without them. We even convinced ourselves that we wouldn’t really be comfortable, or be able to walk, without them. Who knows, perhaps we would fall flat on our face if we weren’t wearing the all important counterbalance of our heavy Christendom backpack.
Then along came the miracle of the Chinese Church. For the first time in over sixteen centuries the Church was relieved of its institutional backpack. You can read about that process in Thank You Chairman Mao. Despite all conventional Christendom wisdom, when the Church stepped out of its familiar backpack, it learned to sprint again. It learned to be a living organic organism again. It learned to be just like what Jesus described in the New Testament, a small seed that grew to a large plant (Matt. 13:31-34).
This story of the church set free from the burden of Christendom is even more startling when explained in its context. In 1949 the Communist Chinese won the civil war for the control of China. They began a slow process of trying to strangle the Christian church, which they considered an opiate of the people. At the time, there were two main expressions of the Church in China, the Catholic Church and the Protestants. The Catholic Church was far bigger and more powerful than were the Protestants. The Communist government’s plan was to take control of the Church by absorbing it under its governmental control. It did this by dividing the Church into two government run organizations, the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) and the Three Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), the government sanctioned Protestant church. The idea was to control the Church and then cut off its resources so that it would slowly die.
What the Chinese government hadn’t foreseen was that faithful believers in both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church would refuse to submit to government control. This led to four expressions of the Church; the CCPA (the largest group), the TSPM (the second largest group), the underground Catholic Church (the third largest group) and the underground Protestants (the smallest group). This last small group became the Chinese house church movement.
No one knows exactly how many were in the Chinese house church movement in the early 1950’s. My guess would be less than 100,000 people. Now that group has grown to about 100 million faithful believers.[2] It is by far the largest segment of Christianity in China. Instead of shrinking under the persecution of the Communist government, it exploded. The other segments of the Church in China, all of which were still tied to institutional forms, yet in the exact same context, did not prosper or grow as did the organic house church movement. The CCPA and the TSPM, at one point, were nearly squeezed out of existence. But the growth of the organic house church movement from under 100,000 to approximately 100 million is the fastest growth ever recorded in the entire history of Christianity; and this under persecution.
What happened to allow this miraculous growth? Christianity, for the first time in 1,636 years was freed for its heavy institutional backpack. It could finally be what it had been designed to be in the first place. And, despite the incredibly difficult surroundings, it learned to run, not crawl. I tell this story in much more detail in my book Viral Jesus which is due to be released Feb. 2, 2012.
We in the Western Church are still wearing a backpack full of bricks. And, not surprisingly, we are not growing at all. We are, in fact, losing ground. We are even losing many of our own children to the world. Yet we have religious freedom. We have freedom of the press. We can do almost anything we want and we lose ground. These are freedoms the Chinese house church movement would love to have. Isn’t it time we learned from our Chinese brothers and strip off the burden of Christendom and learn how to run?
- Why do you think we find the heavy backpack of Christendom so comfortable?
- Why do you think that despite our incredible freedoms we are losing ground? Can you think of another reason besides the backpack of Christendom?
- Many fear that by being freed from the control of Christendom the Chinese house church movement would fall into heresy. For the most part, that hasn’t happened. In fact, it is doctrinally just as healthy as or healthier than Western Christianity. Why?
- What other lessons do you think we can learn from our Chinese brothers?
[1] I’m aware that the institutionalization of the Church was actually a gradual affair starting in the early 2nd Century. However, the Edict of Milan was the powerful watershed event. I’ll document the history and the key events in my upcoming book Viral Jesus.
[2] No exact figures are available. These are estimates using the best available information.




Order Today!
I think that the backpack of Christendom has just become so attached to Christianity that it’s hard to imagine having one without the other. It’s a sad thought because I don’t believe Jesus intended for so much institutionalism and hierarchy to be a part of the Christian experience. Still, knowing that there are individuasl out there who see something else and want to experience that viral Christianity gives me great hope for the future of our faith.
I’m curious…have you read Peter Leithart’s book on Constantine? He argues that ” “Christendom” and “Christianity” are not opposed.
It is said that “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church,” and persecution is a great way to plant seeds (or spread a virus, to use your metaphor.) But how will those seeds ever grow and flourish, if there is never a time when they can mature? The problem I have with the Yoder School of Church History is that it would keep the church in its adolescence. Without the supposed “backpack” of an institutional church, we wouldn’t have theology, philosophy, art, music and other fruits of our life in Christ. Numbers aren’t the only way to measure discipleship!
For that matter, even viruses are backpacks! By themselves, viruses are dangerous; however, they can be useful for “carrying” genes or other beneficial loads into a human body. Ironic, huh? ; )
Institutions represent universals. Universals are those things which make real relationships possible between beings; those things in which they “participate.” The body of Christ is itself a universal, but we become gnostics if we insist that Body is never a physical reality. However, if it is physical, we must admit the reality and necessity of institutions.
By your logic, we should do everything we can to keep tyrants in power, and our Christian brothers and sisters “underground” so that the church will never become an institution. We should pray that Copts are oppressed by Muslims. We should pray that Communists continue to terrorize Christians in China. We should stop praying, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” We should start praying ” Deliver us from Kingdoms!” Anti-constitinanism should find the whole promise of Jesus reigning as our King, and establishing His physical Kingdom on Earth be a step backward, into “institutionalism.” Sorry, but I don’t find that sort of either/or thinking to be biblical.
So, instead of throwing babies out with bathwater, we should confess that institutions, like the individuals who participate in them, can be sinful and in need of Christ’s renewal. Lord, guard us against the sin of thinking that the Church is only a western institution. Or only an eastern institution. Or only a northern or southern institution. As Christ Himself promises in Luke 13:29, many will come from east and west, north and south to SIT DOWN TOGETHER and PARTICIPATE in His feast. May our backpacks be filled with His truth, beauty, and goodness, and may we carry them with us, sharing their provisions with all those we encounter.
Dear Beth,
I’m going to respond to a few of your questions and suppositions. I have never read Peter Leithart’s book. I’ve also never read or studied Yoder. I’m using the word Christendom as “all non-biblical additions to biblical Christianity.” Some of these additions may be fairly innocuous but many create serious problems. Institutionalism is one that creates serious problems. I will explain below.
Tertullian did write that “the blood of the martyrs is seed.” I agree with him, but I am not arguing, in this post, that persecution is the reason house church Christianity prospered in China. It is one factor. But both the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) and the Three Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) were persecuted out of existence during the Cultural Revolution. At the same time, the house church movement not only survived but advanced. The Catholic house church movement survived but did not fair nearly as well as the non-institutional house church movement. They were still tied to institutional structures in Rome and it damaged them. The difference in the Chinese case was institutionalism, not persecution. All were persecuted. The level of numerical growth and spiritual health was tied to their institutionalism or lack thereof. So, I would not argue that Christianity is better off under cruel regimes. I would argue that if they do happen to be under cruel regimes they will prosper better if they are non-institutional in structure.
Your assumption that institutionalism somehow leads to spiritual maturity is not based on any fact. It is merely a supposition. There is a common suppostion, by those who are institutionalized Christians, that we need officially trained human leaders to protect against heresy. The idea that this is actually effective is not supported by reality. It is merely a suppostion and fear of the unknown. The organically structured church in China has maintained its theological purity just as well or better than the Western Church at the same time. Both had heretics but the Chinese Church had far fewer in proportion. One needs to consider that Modernism, commonly called liberalism, is one of the most dangerous heresies in the history of the Church. It is a serious heresy that plagued and continues to plague the TSPM and the Western Church. It was a heresy that was spred by trained clergy and seminaries. It was cleansed from the house church movement by the Holy Spirit.
Institutionalism does not lead to or stop theology, philosophy, art, music or the other fruits of our life in Christ. These are fruit of human creativity, which is part of the image of God in man. We tend to think this comes from institutionalism because this is how we happened to gain these things in the Western Church. The Chinese house church movement has all of these creative expressions. It particularly excels at music. Western philosophy (really Platonism and Aristotelianism), by the way, has done serious damage to the Church. They are examples of stoicheia ( a foundational principle of the world), which I will explain below.
My issue with institutionalism is that the structure is not suggested by the Bible. But even more importantly, as a structure, it is ripe for the abuse of men. In fact, it is inevitable. It is one of the foundational principles of the world that Paul warned us about in Gal 4:3,9 and Col. 2:8,20. Humans always set up human power structures as an organizational principle. Institutionalism is merely one of the more sophisticated examples of human power structures. It doesn’t matter if we are tribes with chiefs and shamans or corporations with CEOs. The basic idea of this structure is that humans control human behavior. The new covenant states that God controls us by putting his law in our hearts and minds (Heb. 8:10). We are to be filled and controlled by His Spirit, not controlled by other humans (see my blog post Leadership??? ). So I don’t agree with you that I’ve set up a false dichotomy. I’m reacting to a stoicheia (foundational principle), the church being taken captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ (Col 2:8).
Yes Lord, guard us against the sin of thinking that the Church is only a western institution. Or only an eastern institution. Or only a northern or southern institution. Guard us against thinking we, the Church, are an institution at all. the Church, certainly isn’t designed or described that way in the New Testament. The Church is described as the body of Christ, an organic metaphor. I don’t say this with anger or bitterness, but I do think it needs to be said.
However, all of us are all sinful. Will Christians who have been taken captive by the stoicheia of institutionalism be at the marriage feast of the Lamb? Yes, of course. The Father will dry away my tears of repentance for the sins I actively participated in without cognizance of their sinfulness. And, those who have been taken captive by this particular stoicheia will also have their tears wiped away. I do not advocate separation from Christians who have a different eccesiology than mine. But I also don’t advocate avoiding pointing out how dangerous bad ecclesiolgy is to the kingdom of God. That’s what I’ve attempted to do in this post.
Warmly in Christ,
Ross
Hi Ross!
I’ve responded to your message above on my blog…http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13012039&postID=1214378819526033409&page=1&token=1297504171539
Essentially, I suggest that
1) your principles (stoicheia) of biblical interpretation may actually have an extra-biblical, historical source;
2) that yours might not be the only possible hermeneutic(and therefore ecclesiology) which is faithful to Christ;
3) that there is another way to define “institution” beside the way you have presented, such that even an “organic” model of the church might be considered an institution;
4) that “Christian primitivism” or “restorationism” is a persistent ideal in church history
5) that some institutions are actually God-given!
6) that, from my perspective here in Oregon, nominalism is actually the threat to the American church, not institutionalism.
Looking forward to hearing from you! : )
Blessings in Christ,
Beth
I have read that book. Brother Yun was has also been in Finland few times.