Institutions

We don't always like them, but we certainly need them

I am aware that Missio Nexus, the association I lead, represents institutions that have dominated missions for the past fifty years. We Evangelicals tend to be anti-institutional, punishing the most successful of our institutions because of our inherent individualism.

Institutions, as we know, take on a life and personality of their own. They are like people in that they have a weird self-awareness that focuses on preservation. I wrote about this in The Innovation Crisis. When the organization’s mission is swapped out for sustainability, then your ministry is living for itself. This is where a lot of ministries (organizations and churches) are today.

So much of our work at Missio Nexus has been about helping ministries see that they cannot let themselves fall in sustaining/stagnating patterns. I think we are making progress on this and the presence of so many innovation labs, conferences, and organizational change processes are markers of this happening.

With this emphasis on mission established, ponder institutions with me.

There is a great temptation today to toss out institutionalization as an overall bad thing. We have all been victims of institutionalization at some point in our lives. We observe the corrupting influence of aggregated power in institutions, from governments to churches. Seldom would we think of larger institutions as living in the innovating/disrupting sector of the spectrum above. This is a fallacy, though. The biggest innovating/disrupting companies are often the largest institutions. What are the “most innovative companies” that easily come to mind? Apple. Microsoft. Amazon. Google. Meta. You get the idea. The “big boys” are actually driving a lot of innovation and disruption in our world. For sure, most of that innovation is being purchased, but they are in the driver’s seat.

Contrast that to the big players in global missions today. Are they driving innovation and disruption? Or, alternately, do we just see them as big, lumbering institutions, unable to innovate or disrupt? We run a risk in the missions sector of not seeing the importance of stable institutions to propel the missionary task (discipling the nations) toward a healthier and more effective conclusion.

Evangelicals are institution averse. James Davison Hunter, in his book, To Change the World, argues that Evangelicals obsess over “bottom up” change. This is akin to “cultures change when hearts change.” He notes that this is simplistic. This is one area of change, but institutions also play a role. He claims that change is also created by “elites, networks, technology, and institutions.” Hunter published this book 14 years ago. Yet I believe we Evangelicals continue to be anti-institutional.

The current “vibe shift” recognizes the influential role that institutions play. If you think shutting down USAID is a good idea, you do, too. If USAID was not influential, you would not care too much if it continued or ended. Institutions can be forces for good or bad, Regardless, they are forces. Evangelical influence (and by influence I include the ability to obey Jesus and disciple the nations) suffers if we fail to build healthy institutions.

Our lack of institution building comes out in many ways. Take funding for example. The most innovative institutions are those that have at least some unrestricted money available to them. This is how new ideas get funded (venture capital) and how necessary investments are made (infrastructure). I do not mean “unrestricted amounts of money.” I mean money which is not encumbered by donor intent, giving leaders freedom to invest in what is most strategic.

There are many ways we limit funding the institutions we need to get the job done:

• Funders show their anti-institutional bias when they only give to “the front lines.” Funders often place percentage limitations on “admin fees,” which are seen as overhead. I have yet to see an “efficiency rating,” found on popular charity evaluation sites, take into account things like research and development. An emphasis on project funding, and not the larger vision of the ministry, makes sure that money given is not able to be used for new ideas or infrastructure. I am aware of a couple major foundations that only fund nationals (indigenous ministries). These national movements initially came about in large part because of institutions that were built in past decades. Even today, many of these funding organizations rely on Western missionaries for information, reporting, and evaluation about the field projects they want to support, despite being unwilling to invest in the infrastructure that placed those very missionaries into the field.

• Agencies reveal an anti-institutional bias when they suffer from poor self-identity. Accusations of colonialism have played a role in this, alongside the “nationals are most effective” movement. Articulating a clear vision is always hard, but this sort of low confidence makes it even harder. I myself suffer from this at times, having steered millions of dollars toward Missio Nexus member organizations while doing a poor job of covering our own financial needs. Yet, we ourselves are an institution with an important role to play. We just announced a new partnership with Cornerstone Management called Worthy of the Gift to help organizations think through this issue.

• The entire church support system for missionaries (except for cooperative denominational agencies) show this anti-institutional bias. Churches fund individual missionaries and their families. Rarely do they give to the organizations that train, deploy, and provide ongoing support for these missionaries. Having a deeper relationship with the agency, including directly funding that agency, can propel the greater vision of the agency forward, enabling other individuals to also be sent and entire people groups to be reached.

Institutions provide the stability that makes long-term commitments more likely. For example, some church planting is needed in remote, resistance, and difficult cultures. This process can be generational. No single church or missionary will be able to deliver results in the span of a four-year missionary term or two. You can pray and hope to be Jonah and the Ninevites, but history indicates that most church planting is a long-haul slog. Even these places where movements are purported to be happening are often also where long-term effort has been expended for decades. A missionary agency with a long-term commitment to seeing this job through to its completion stands the best chance of being present across generations. Institutions have staying power.

Networks are all the rage today. I like networks, too! They are great. Would I want to get my paycheck from a network? I don’t think so. I like a little bit of institutional stability with my paycheck, knowing that somebody is being held accountable to make sure it arrives on time and in the correct bank account. There are things that institutions can do that looser networks cannot do.

Institutions provide people with a sense of stability, a role, and a place of belonging. We might not like to admit it, but we often want a good dose of institutionalization in our churches. It gives them that gravitas, that strength of presence, that feels solid and supportive. In today’s uncertain world, in which institutions of all kinds are less popular than ever, I believe we are primed for a resurgence of healthy institutions. That seems unlikely now, given the “vibe shift,” but pendulums swing. This might not be a bad thing.