I hear the word “organic” thrown around a lot in religious circles. When I took a minute to look at how this term was actually defined, I found numerous definitions. I think, in the kingdom of organized religion, these are what they are talking about:
“Philosophy. having an organization similar in its complexity to that of living things.” Or, closely related: “developing in a manner analogous to the natural growth and evolution characteristic of living organisms; arising as a natural outgrowth.” We yearn for something “real,” something that is not awash in organization red-tape and growth impeding programming and manipulation.
But I also hang with a group that is trying to be “organic” in other areas of our life — food, clothing, transportation … and when I started to synthesize these two similar (but different) ideas of what “organic” is, I started looking at additional definitions:
“…pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits.” Another one:
“Architecture. noting or pertaining to any work of architecture regarded as analogous to plant or animal forms in having a structure and a plan that fulfill perfectly the functional requirements for the building and that form in themselves an intellectually lucid, integrated whole.”
Hmmm … maybe “the church” doesn’t really understand what’s involved with being organic? See, if you look at the broader scope of what it means to be a living, breathing organism (instead of a calcified, program-driven organization) you see that to be organic means to do without the chemical additives and genetically modified “stuff” that so many churches adopt in hopes of being the next “successful ministry.” Organisms grow, change, alter, die in a course set for them by the Creator. While they can be guided (think Bonsai trees), they can never really be consumed by organization without simply becoming another waste product (think … OK, never-mind).
As I’m revisiting this idea of “organic organization” (an oxymoron from the get-go), I’m wondering if those crying for “organic church” in my proximity really understand what they are asking for?
I’m growing tomatoes right now (actually, they are growing themselves). B. and I laid the groundwork … we did an organic technique this year that involves laying black plastic over the growing area, and planting through it to inhibit weeds naturally and keep the soil warmer longer — extending the growing season we have here in the “great white North.” I keep them watered. Yeah, I talk to them once in a while when the neighbors aren’t looking. But beside that (and checking for tomato worms, which I would immediately pick off and drown!), I’m just waiting for the harvest. I watch them, I water them. But these are truly “organic” tomatoes, growing and developing and simply doing what they were designed to do.
Does a desire to “do more” stir in my heart? You bet! These were tomatoes my brother didn’t think would make it, and everything in me wants to sprinkle them with “Miracle grow” or something or the other that would make them bigger — better. But deeper inside of me, there is the knowledge that “the best” thing to do is to simply let those tomatoes do what they were designed to do. As they grow, their success has very little to do with me. And I’m OK with that, because I firmly believe in the concept of “organic”. I have to take my hands off — loosen control — breathe, and simply “let them be.”
I don’t know if what we call “church” can ever, ever truly be organic. Not if we look at the broader scope of the definition. Maybe I’m wrong — that would be OK. But in my head, the jury’s out and the doubt I feel comes from years of seeing people “screw with the garden.”
I guess that’s all for tonight. I’d love some “push back” on this issue.
(all definitions taken from http://www.dictionary.com)





