Institutional vs. Organic

What does the book Reimagining Church, the movie Say Anything, author Frank Viola, fictional character Lloyd Dobler, the Open Model of Education, Learning, Institutional Church, and the Organic Church have in common?  Into the Education Innovation blender they go.

I have been reading Reimagining Church: Pursuing The Dream of Organic Christianity by Frank Viola.

Frank juxtaposes what he calls the Organic Church with the Institutional Church. I am not writing in support of his thesis but rather something that is found in both the education system and the “institutional church.”

Let’s begin with Frank’s definition of the Institutional Church.

Institutional Church:
“…those churches that operate primarily as institutions that exist above, beyond, and independent of the members that populate them. These churches are constructed on programs and rituals more than relationships. They are highly structured, typically building-centered organizations regulated by set-apart professionals (‘ministers’ and ‘clergy’) who are aided by volunteers (laity). They require staff, building, salaries, and administration. In the institutional church, congregants watch a religious performance once or twice a week led primarily by one person (the pastor or minister), and then retreat home to live their individual Christian lives.”

So how does this relate to education you ask?

Here is the point from Frank..

“The ‘institutional church’ is a system—a way of doing ‘church.’ It’s not the people who populate it.”

That is too describes education, or what I call “Big Education.”

Big Education is a system. It is not about the learning so much as it is about the supporting an organization that does many things other than teaching.

Big Education….

Maintains things
Buys things
Monitors things
Pays for things
Transports things
Paints things
Cleans things
Trims things
Builds things
Repairs things
Orders things
Fills out things
Reports things
Budgets things
Plans things
Evaluates things
Fixes things
Drives things
Ships things
Collects things
Warehouses things
Meets to talk about things
Measures things
Replaces things

So many things that have nothing to do with learning, but have a lot to do with maintaining the organization.

The key here is that Big Education operates on the premise that learning takes place in certain place and from certain people. Big Education exists to support those places and those people, but in the end does a lot to support the organization itself.

Could the same be said about the Institutional Church?

So much of what a church does or what a school district does has no direct link to connecting with God or to learning.

Contrast the institutional church with what Frank calls the Organic Church.

Organic Church:
“An organic church is one that is naturally produced when a group of people have encountered Jesus Christ in reality (external ecclesiastical props being unnecessary), and the DNA of the church is free to work without hindrance.”

A similar definition might be used to describe learning.

Learning is naturally produced when a learner encounters something or someone he or she want to learn about. I call this the Open Model of Education, and it can happen anywhere, anytime, and does not require a school building. Maybe I should call it organic learning.

In the movie Say Anything, Lloyd Dobler said…
“I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.”

But do we want our schools and our churches do those things? Because they do lots and lots of those things that Lloyd Dobler wants to avoid.

Is that what they were meant to do? Is that their mission? Maybe. Maybe not.

It’s an interesting question. What would the answer mean to you, your church, or your school?

Asking the interesting question is Education Innovation.

Might I suggest:

Are we married to the mission or the methods?

Failure Is An Option In The Open Model of Education

Comments

[Joel Zehring]

Sounds like the difference between activity and action. Did I get that from you? Chronic activity with little action is certainly a risk for any group of people, and even many individuals (especially bloggers). I'm not convinced that the organic church model eliminates this risk. I think it may set the Church up to be more effective with her time and attention, but people in the church will still need to stay laser-focused on God's purpose.

Similarly, "organic schools" will still need a meaningful, transcendent purpose, or else they'll just spin their wheels like schools in "Big Education." I like Neil Postman's book The End of Education for good discussion on the purpose of schooling.

[Rob Jacobs]

The point you make is an interesting one and that you found it in my idea is a testament to perspective.

While I was writing the post my mind was focused more the fact that an organization does so many things that do not relate to it's mission.

For example, if learning is the mission of education, learning can take place anywhere. It doesn't have to take place in a school. But much of what the organization does is support the building, the things in the building, and the people who work at the building.

Similarly a church has a mission to serve, but much of what is done Monday through Saturday is to support the organization behind the Sunday service.

I am just asking what these or any other organization might look like if they thought differently or asked different questions about the role of their organizations.

Neil Postman is very insightful and is, as you say, an excellent book for discussion.

[Joel Zehring]

You're getting into Disrupting Class territory with all this "learning can take place anywhere" talk. Schools are not just about "learning." Schools are now tasked with assessing and ensuring learning for every child. Sure, children learn wherever and whenever, but can we assess this learning independent of a school building or teacher or other institutional appendage?

Christensen seems to suggest that we might use computers to assess at least some of this learning remotely, but we still need some institutional structure to facilitate, receive, troubleshoot, and especially sanction the learning.

A group of believers needs no such institutional support or sanction. I think that's what Christ was talking about with whole "Whenever two or three are gathered..." idea.

[Rob Jacobs]

Well I do love the "Disruption" I agree with the point you make with one caveat. Learning does not need to be assessed in the pure sense.

Is is the teacher who assess learning to determine the effectiveness of the teaching and or to determine discrepancies of the learning.

I wonder if the technology will arrive at the point the Christensen suggests are as far as education goes. It will be fun to watch it play out.

"Whenever two or three are gathered.." I wonder if this applies to being online? One more rabbit hole to dive down :-0

[Seth Simonds]

Aren't "Church Institutions" and "Big Education" simply trying to fulfill the purpose one might write out for them on a 3x5 card? It takes a lot of heart to give up a church building because a congregation wants to spend the money on supporting missions instead. It takes a lot of grit to recognize that some people will not learn some subjects at-par with their peers no matter how big the school is or how new its computers are.

A conversation just this afternoon found topics in the high burn-out rate of most pastors. The pastor of a small-to-medium-sized church must cover all the institutional bases while fostering community and can quickly find energy flowing out faster than it is replaced.

I'm delighted to stumble into this conversation. Thank you.

Seth

[Eamon Costello]

There is something else to mind when I think about Institutional Learning and that is Idealised Learning. Institutional Learning (in the Big Education sense) definitely exists. However Idealised Learning is ephemeral.

For instance Idealised Learning often assumes we have a learner willing to learn and a teacher willing to teach. In institutional learning this is never guaranteed. Often a teacher has a desire to get promoted while a student may have a desire to graduate. Neither of these correspond with Idealised Learning. Proponents of Idealised Learning my argue that Institutional Learning actually causes this situation. However it is impossible to prove this.

Not sure what my point was here again :)

[Rob Jacobs]

Seth,the point you make about pastors is an important one. Principals too are considered the lead teacher (in the sense of a senior pastor) but many of them at the elementary level are alone. Their job is to be the instructional leader of the school, but also track and plan budgets, get involved in facilities issues, personnel issues, parent issues, student discipline issues, and all sorts of paperwork. Hard for one person to do all these things and still be in charge of the learning going on. But, again, what do all those things have to do with learning? Nothing.

Eamon, the assumption that all teachers want to teach and that all students want to learn is one of the biggest false assumptions in public or private education. Great point.