Choosing church, for the church

I’ve been listening and reading quite a bit lately on “the church” and various people’s response to the church’s failure to live up to its beliefs. Having come myself from a “mixed-bag” experience of Christ in and out of the institution, I’ve come to realize that i am not so sure what is most necessary for christianity is a mass exodus of marginalized Christ-following consumers from the institution.
In fact, in some places, i wonder whether or not the ecclesiastical remnant within various cathedrals, buildings, and parishes actually speak to the longevity of the institution, and of God’s choosing it within particular contexts globally. The church, as an institution has always existed. Even if it was not called “the church” within ancient christianity. Even if it was called “the city” or “the gathered people”. The earliest followers of Christ were deeply devout, extremely institutionalized in their humility, and quite frankly, very formed by their religio-cultural heritage.
A couple of reflections on reclaiming the institution:
The church in France- I could be wrong, but i’ve heard from several friends living in france and looking to plant new churches, that often this initiative is met with great skepticism. In fact, I’ve come to hear that starting a “culte” is actually a very difficult systemic thing to do. Options: 1. start a house church and avoid the bureaucratic skeptics, 2. Join the recognized institutional system and take 5-10+ years to bring reformation to the existing reformed and catholic church.
Which do you think most people choose? And why?
A tabernacled community has been God’s way of forming people and communities to follow after God. Not just the people, the readings. Not just the rituals, the Spirit. Not just the clergy, the layity.
It seems to me, that what we need is a neo-structural approach. I think its hard to see. I think its hard to find. I think when addressing the rejection of structures we must ask questions about whether or not the structures are out-moded, out-dated, or simply without people passionately infusing the structures with life. Afterall, its not the structures themselves that have life, its that which is brought to them, and mediated out of them by those who choose to engage with them.
I can honestly say that I’m not talking about reclaiming the ways of a mere-institution for the institution’s sake; no, I’m actually trying to ask what incarnational Christianity looks like in the church? What can i bring with my passion and with my community to a structure that will out last me and you, and others. What parts of my preferences need to be sacrificed or put aside so that new life is gifted from within the places where there is currently no apparent life, or passion, or joy. And yet, even that sounds judgemental. For i would think that many people today would say, there is no place where there is no life, only the places where it has yet to take up residence.
Maybe its just me? Maybe i just don’t want to be assumed to be against the institutions of this world. Good or bad. There are systemic problems globally. The goal should never be “down with the system”! No, I think Jesus actually calls us to something much bigger, something much more radical. Something much more engaging.