Friday, November 28th, 2014
The Layman Online > Carmen's Writings > Should the church be a ‘safe place?’

Should the church be a ‘safe place?’

RNS-TOM-EHRICHTom Ehrich, frequent columnist for Religion News Service (RNS), recently penned an editorial titled “Church shouldn’t be this hard.

The piece is provocative and serves as a critique of the status quo Christian church, presumably in America. I say “presumably” because Ehrich doesn’t make a move toward defining where this church is (theologically, geographically, etc.). Like a Rorschach ink blot, we are left to our own imaginations to provide the specific object of his ecclesial scorn.

For example:

“An assembly that exists to help people shouldn’t be so willing to hurt people – by declaring them worthless, unacceptable, undesirable or strangers at the gate.”

Who is doing this? Who is “so willing to hurt people”? Who declares people “worthless” and “unacceptable”?

I suspect that if Ehrich was going after the fringes, he would simply say so and call a few of them out by name.

Here is another line:

“An assembly that should relax into serenity of God’s unconditional love shouldn’t be so filled with hatred and fear.”

Again, who is he talking about? You might ask why I care that Ehrich lacks specificity. But these pieces get a lot of eyeballs — I printed this one off the The Washington Post site. This is not an internal conversation — Christian to Christian. No, these kind of editorials are critiques of the entire Church (the universal Church with a capital C).

I prefer a more direct approach. When Jesus had a beef with the Church, He told the church directly about their wayward manner of doctrine and practice (i.e. most of the New Testament past the Gospels). Therein we find fairly clear indictments against lost love, licentiousness and loose doctrine – and we hear the call from Christ to repent.

But with Ehrich, we get:

“An assembly that follows an itinerant rabbi shouldn’t be chasing permanence, stability and property.”

So, following Christ will bring the fruit of ecclesial impermanence, instability and … no deeds to physical property?

Eventually Ehrich’s main focus of critique becomes clear: the institutional church is the problem.

“The millions who are fleeing institutional Christianity in America aren’t escaping bad doctrine, shoddy performance values or inconvenient calls to mission. They are escaping the institution itself.”

Where’s the sociological data for that claim? Is he referring to recent Pew Research? Maybe, but who knows? On the other hand, maybe he is writing about the mass exodus of people out of mainline denominations and into theologically-conservative bodies and denominations. I doubt that is his intention, for he clearly states that Christians aren’t “escaping bad doctrine.”

So, what forms of institutional Christianity might Ehrich be pointing out? At the risk of hearing Ehrich belt out some Carly Simon (“You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you”), I do believe he is talking about conservative, evangelical churches.

Church should be a safe place — safe to be oneself, safe to make one’s confession, safe to love whoever one feels called to love, safe to imagine more, safe to fail. Instead, church often is a dangerous place, where people feel guarded, self-protective, hemmed in by tradition and expectation, required to obey rules.

Where would you go to feel “safe to love whoever one feels called to love”? That’s code language (without subtlety) for same-sex relationships. Would you head to your local conservative, evangelical church to get such a feeling?Safe Place logo

Is critique important? Certainly. But from what authority?

I contend that the critique of the Church comes rightly from an authoritative word, the Word of God. No matter the issue, the Bible is our source for all things pertaining to life and practice.

God did not leave the bride of His Son without counsel nor without directives. Which is actually why a congregation faithful to God’s Word will not proclaim itself to be a “safe place to love anyone you want.”

The Church is an inherently dangerous place

I take issue with the statement that the church should be a safe place” because a church is an inherently dangerous place. The Church is in the world as a light bearing truth to the powers that be. The Church is a counter-cultural declaration that humanity is in need of redemption and that Christ alone is the Way to salvation.

Church is not a safe place because Jesus is “not a tame lion” — to quote C.S. Lewis.

Church is a safe place to be dead to oneselfSafe to make a confession in Christ alone. Safe to love God with all your heart, mind and body. Safe to lead a life unconstrained by rules but fully conformed in obedience to the will of God.

 

 

Share this post:

on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

About the author: Carmen Fowler LaBerge

Carmen Fowler LaBerge heads the ministry of the Presbyterian Lay Committee as its President and Executive Editor of its publications, including The Layman.

4 comments

  1. Tom Johnson says:

    “Church is a safe place to be dead to oneself.” This is a popular notion among us evangelicals, Carmen, but not a biblical concept. We are instructed to deny ourselves, and be dead to sin. But the phrase “die to self” never appears in the Scriptures. Rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we must understand, motivate and activate ourselves–the selves God created and Jesus died to redeem. I don’t believe we are called to be dead, or cut off, from our divinely valued identities. And that’s the impression often left by the “dead to oneself” idea.

  2. James Stevenson says:

    I believe Carmen’s analysis of Ehrich is correct -that’s his Wash Post column was directed at conservative evangelicals.
    However, I think we’d all agree that Jesus’ commands to love one another as I have loved u, & to love your neighbor as yourself, ALSO apply to us evangelicals. Too many of Ehrich’s phrases – “safe to be oneself, safe to make one’s confession, safe to love whoever one feels called to love, safe to imagine more, safe to fail” are NOT commonly found in the conservative Presby church’s my wife & I have been in. As always, it’s more tempting to critique others’ sins than to deal w/ our own sins. Thus it seems to me that Ehrich’s critique is partly true, although not in the progressive way he intended.

  3. John Pehrson says:

    Carmen,
    Did you read the same article I did? What Ehrich touches on is very similar what is discussed in the new book, “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore.” The American Church is in decline – liberal, conservative, evangelical, protestant, Catholic. Some of it is because the church has not been a safe place, especially for struggling, unstable, and needy people. Such people have too often been victimized by the very institution they sought refuge in. Boz Tchividjian, law professor a Liberty U. and a grandson of Billy Graham, said last September that if it could ever be uncovered, evangelicals would be discovered to be worse than Catholics on sex abuse. The church has not been a safe place for too many people.
    On the other hand, the church should be a dangerous place. Dangerous because it is a threat to the very culture in which it exists. I’ve preached both viewpoints a few weeks apart. Such is the dialectic dichotomy of the Christian faith as it vacillates seeking equilibrium. Yet, the fact should be that the church is a safe place because it is a dangerous place.
    The church needs to learn to practice the four acts of love the Schultz’s discuss in their book: Radical hospitality, Fearless conversation, Genuine humility, and Divine anticipation. These acts will make it a face place and perhaps once again a growing place.

  4. Lance says:

    Yes, we all know he is referring to the acceptance of same sex relationships. Such writers can’t come out and say it, because there would be a risk of losing many supporters. Why? Because there is a vast group of well-intended churchgoers who are completely clueless regarding what is going on with regard to the same sex issue. So they read an article like this, and agree with the author. The Presbytery I am in boasted unanimous vote in favor of the ordination changes. A sweet lady in my church who was a delegate (and voted in favor) said they never mentioned anything about same-sex relationships. She said they purposely withheld details of the issue (including controversy) so the vote would pass. She is not alone. I digressed as I was originally going to comment that Carmen’s note made me think: The people for whom the author thinks the church should be a “safe” place, actually becomes a very dangerous place, possibly even the gateway to hell. I say this because of the false doctrine, and false approval of life choices that are incompatible with Christian living.

Leave a comment

Comment form

All fields marked (*) are required