From Mattson

I have noticed for some time now, in conversations and a variety of writings, that there seems to be an inordinate preoccupation with what is “wrong” with the Covenant and its institutions — and institutions in general. (My apologies to those who are part of another covenant.) Theories abound about how to make the church grow, how to make it more effective, how to attract the right people and the right pastors, where to locate churches, etc., etc., etc. . . . Church growth and evangelism departments are established. They spend time and energy to institutionalize all those theories and proposals. Classes are offered in seminaries on how to be good managers and business people, so that new pastors can go out to a church and be effective managers.

It appears to this dumb lay person that those who are heading up these institutions are obsessed with the idea that the INSTITUTION is what is really important and must be preserved, no matter what the consequences. People in positions of leadership seem to want to DEFINE people and things, and that makes them more comfortable. I, for one, do not like to be defined. I find it confining and rigid and closed to other possibilities. I like the freedom and flexibility to have conversations that allow for the exchange of diverse ideas.

In my few years around churches and other Judea-Christian institutions of various shades and persuasions, I have often thought that we have overlooked one significant element in the life and growth of the "institutions" - one thing that allows us to do our job to almost everyone's satisfaction (allowing freedom and flexibility)- that is, the FOLDING CHAIR.

Consider its usefulness and flexibility. When not in use, it does not take up much space. When called upon to its appointed task, there it is. It is very easy to put into service, and it usually does not complain but does what is asked of it. It will accommodate people of all shapes and sizes, colors and dispositions. It allows the congregation, if they so wish, to be on the move. It does not lock them into one place, but rather allows them the flexibility to move to the park or the street or wherever people are who will not come to a building, where they might not "fit in." This ingenious little device might even force us off our behinds, for it is not comfortable to sit on for any length of time; and it might force us to be open to a newness that will allow us to WALK OUR TALK. The result could be a refreshing diversity in what otherwise might be a stagnant institution.