Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
April 23, 1959
NUMBER 50, PAGE 1,11b-12

Institutionalism -- (No. II.)

E L. Flannery, Bedford, Ohio

We now undertake a brief study of the sociological concepts of institutions as being evolutionary in nature, and then notice the course of American Protestantism as her churches became institutionalized.

Sociological Concepts of Institutions In any society the various interests in the society give rise to associations as:

Economic interests Type form: The business

Industrial, financial, agricultural, professional, insurance, charity, gangsters, etc.

Political interests Type form: the state

Municipal, other territorial divisions, parties, lobbies, propagandists.

Educational interests Type form: the school

Colleges, universities, study groups.

Sex and reproduction ....Type form: the family

Religious interests Type form: the church Religious propagandists, associations, monasteries, etc.

(From MacIver's chart on "Associations and Interests" Readings In Sociology, edited by Alfred M. Lee, publishers, Barnes and Noble, 1952, New York, p. 327.)

Most sociologists would say these institutions, as the ones just named, have evolved from the very simple to the very complex. The family was patterned to the need of the culture in which it was, but could be changed when that culture deemed a change needful. Being a man-made institution man could make changes in its pattern when it served his purpose better to do so, say the sociologists.

The family is counted by the sociologists a very basic functional unit, a primary institution. Lloyd V. Ballard, sociologist of the University of Wisconsin, stresses the importance of the family as a functional unit in these words:

The role which this type of familial organization (permanent monogamist marriage) plays in the affairs of men is revealed in the character and behavior of homeless groups, namely, the institutional child, the spinster, and the hobo. In spite of claims made for the efficiency of modern substitutes for the home, the child reared in an orphanage is now generally conceded to be socially deficient. Of course, he is less deficient with than without such care; but it is apparent that "the child in the institution leads an artificial life under artificial conditions, and his 'hothouse' development does not prepare for the environment into which he passes after he leaves the institution." . . . Nurses, psychiatrists, physicians, dieticians, and teachers cannot possibly give the informal training, the sustained attention to aptitude and attitude, or the knowledge of the ways of men by which parents in the normal home develop the personality of each child and facilitate its contacts with the outside world. For this reason the institutional child is often helpless and easily submerged when the problems of adult life confront him. (Social Institutions, Lloyd V. Ballard, Century Co., 1936, p. 469)

The state evolved, say sociologists, from family to tribe rule and on to the present forms of national governments of great complexity. The pattern was man-made, and man was always changing it to better meet his needs in a changing cultural pattern. The institution, state, was not fixed or frozen, but evolving into different structure while meeting its function to govern.

The institution of sports, recreation, is also seen by the sociologist as an evolutionary process with no fixed patterns, but changed by each culture to meet their needs and desires as they felt best.

On approaching religion, or the church, the sociologist of today is more cautious in stating his evolutionary concepts, and far less critical and denunciatory of religion than were earlier sociologists. But they none the less believe religion (church included) was originated by man to meet his need in the area of the "unknown and unknowable." Again, say the sociologists, this institution (religion) began with very simple concepts based on fear, awe, mystery, and later, magic, advancing to the philosophical and theological beliefs held today. It was never based on fixed patterns, but each culture evolved and developed their religion to meet their needs they say. They object strenuously to the idea of "revealed religion" and "inspired religious patterns". Maclver said:

"Revelation stands in the way of revaluation" (Society, p. 319) They believe religion ought to continually change, revaluate itself in the context of the present-day culture and make adaptations. These sociologist underscore the fact that religion and churches have changed and changed greatly as "proof" that religion could not be divinely revealed, but rather is the product of man's fertile mind.

We Christians who do believe that Christianity is a divine and revealed religion, and that the church was instituted by Christ and his inspired Apostles, do we believe the function of the church (its area of activity) was revealed by inspiration? Can we ignore or change the revealed "patterns" and argue with the sociologist that we have a revealed religion? Can we read in the New Testament how the church went about doing her work (her pattern of activity, her functions) and blandly say these were not patterns revealed to us, and then set up other patterns of activity? Why were these recorded?

Do we believe in evolutionary religion, too, as do the sociologists?

Upholding the theory of evolutionary religion Dr. Toy wrote:

The external history of religion is the history of the process by which religious sentiments, ideas, activities, and organizations have attached themselves to the various conceptions formed by man's observation, reflection and experience... Religion has always, of necessity, organized itself in accord with the general structure of social systems ... Both naturalism and humanism have affected religion mightily ... It has become less God-centered and more man-centered; less passive, more creative; but also less sacred, more secular . . . Since religious agencies of all kinds are made by man, they must be and can be continually remade. If men are to meet their spiritual needs in an ever more changing world, religion must be redefined, clarified, reorganized, and subjected to much thoughtful experimentation. (Alfred M. Lee, op. cit., pp. 389-391)

We fear lest brethren, unknowingly, have accepted the evolutionary theories of the sociologists, thrown fixed patterns and revealed religion overboard, and also feel that "religion must be redefined, clarified, reorganized (centralized, E. L. F.) and subjected to much thoughtful experimentation". It has been the history of man to follow such a course of human wisdom, and the church of the Lord has not been living in a vacuum. We fear she has been leavened with sociology's social gospel.

American Protestantism In Evolution

A concise and clear view of American Protestantism and the evolutionary course it has taken has been written by Dr. Winthrop Hudson, professor at Colgate-Rochester Divinity School. He first quotes Henry Steele Commager as saying: "Never before have the churches been materially more powerful or spiritually less effective", and then adds:

Religion became increasingly a social activity rather than a spiritual experience . . . It was practically held that the salvation of one's soul must not be made too depressing, or young people would want nothing to do with it. Professors of the sternest temporized with sinners, and did what might be done to win them to heaven by helping them to have a good time here. The church embraced the world. (Hudson, The Great Tradition of the American Churches, Harper Bros., New York, 1953, p. 23)

Another student of these matters, Dr. Samuel Koenig, Brooklyn College wrote:

The trend toward the socialization and secularization of the church is undeniable. Even in the Fundamental churches and denominations, increasing attention is being given to contemporary social problems and needs. (Man and Society, Koenig, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1957, p. 128)

Protestant churches have gone into much recreational activity to hold their young and gain others. Advocating such a procedure Professor Neumeyer, University of California comments:

Until recent decades many church bodies and leaders assumed a negative and sometimes hostile attitude towards recreation, especially toward church-centered recreation . . . Modern progressive church leaders feel that, while worship and education are the chief functions of the church, recreational and social activities are important and integral parts of the church program . . . (Leisure and Recreation, Neumeyer, Ronald Press Co., New York, 1958, p. 379)

The same author suggests the recreational leader might use for church activity such things as games, parties, socials, entertainments, teas, dinners, dramatics, musical events, clubwork, and "in some churches dancing and sports". He says there is a need with this type program for church stages, gymnasiums, church camps, etc.

We wonder how some of our brethren feel about these matters? We read of church camps, church gyms, church ball teams, etc., and read ads inquiring of some young "preacher" to direct "the activities of our young people." Has the Protestant recreational leaven gotten into segments of the church? We believe there is concrete evidence that such is the truth. Not making the distinction between the function of the church and the function of other institutions has caused this confusion. How many young people think of the "Christian Colleges" as a sort of church-related, church-directed activity, and from this faulty basis reach the conclusion that what is done in the colleges and on the campuses must be all right and therefore permissible as church activity? How many parents are glad to have some other institution than the family assume their responsibility and function in their stead in recreational needs?

Showing how Protestantism embraced the world with its social gospel Dr. Hudson continues:

Never before had the churches been able to boast of such a large portion of the population being listed upon their membership rolls, and never before had the members of the church been so busy — sewing in social settlements, organizing boys' clubs, joining sewing classes, attending "open forums" . . . But within two decades the churches were on the defensive and were soon to be in full retreat ... Habits of temperance and sobriety, inculcated by the churches for over a century, disappeared almost overnight. Family devotions survived in most homes only as a childhood memory, grace before meals became increasingly rare, and a rapidly mounting divorce rate gave mute evidence of the disintegration of the Christian family ... The churches relaxed and made peace with the world. The progression which followed was clear and remorseless — discipline disappeared, evangelistic fervor faded, faith lost its force, and the churches, living at peace with the world, lost their sense of a distinct and specific vocation in society and devoted their energies to social activities, humanitarian enterprises .. . Thus a "process which began with a culture molded by religious faith" was to end "with religious faith molded by a national culture". The churches, succumbing to complacency, had embraced the world ... (Hudson, op. cit., p. 195) (Emphasis mine, ELF)

Floundering in this sea of social activity, having but little influence spiritually, Dr. Hudson compared these churches to the river boat with paddle wheels that had too small a steam boiler — if they used all the steam they could make the paddles turn slowly, but when they blew her whistle then the paddles stopped. He concluded most Protestant churches had become content to blow "the whistle of self-attraction" (humanitarian enterprises and social and recreational activities) and let the boat (churches) float down the stream with the rest of the world, forgetting their "distinct and specific vocation in society".

If we were analytical and sincere, could not much of what Dr. Hudson states concerning the Protestant churches also be said of the church of the Lord? Have not some permitted discipline to disappear? Are not some at peace with the world ? Have not many lost their sense of the "distinct and specific function" of the Lord's church in society and turned to social and recreational pursuits? Has the "national culture" been molding our religious practices as it has that of the Protestants? Are we vigorously trying to "mold the culture" in which we live to New Testament standards?

Thinking Protestants are seeking a way to improve their situation as a religious institution. Rauschenbusch concludes:

The pioneers of the social gospel had a hard time. Some lost their faith; others came out of the struggle with crippled formulations of truth, a kind of dumbbell system of thought with the social gospel at one end and individual salvation at the other. (Ibid. p. 230)

If members of a church do not believe in their own Gospel sufficiently to take it seriously, they can scarcely expect the world to do so ... The churches can never make good their claim to possess the good news of redemption in the eyes of either the simple or the sophisticated unless they appear visibly as a distinct society from the larger society (world) about them." (Ibid. p. 250.)

(To be concluded)