If church was a person, how would we diagnose its response to criticism?
Also, where is the "fourth power" in church?
As a society, we don’t have a problem diagnosing random people on the internet, so this one should be easy!
So this is the situation: Someone is pointing out a legitimate problem within the church—a specific congregation or the institution as a whole.
One of the church’s many (self-appointed or official) representatives: “Yeah, you may be right, but…
“The sinful world does not have the moral right to judge the church of Christ!”
Feminists, gay people, socialists, capitalists, liberals, abortionists, etc. are ruining our nation, and you’re talking about that?
“We’re all sinners, aren’t we?”
“This is just a reminder that we can all fall in the same way.”
“Look who’s talking!” [Followed by a no-holds-barred attack.]
“We have done everything by the Book [=our infallible interpretation of it], so really we can’t be blamed. The problem is clearly on the other side.”
“You’re exaggerating.”
“You’re histrionic.”
“You’re making it up.”
“How come we don’t have this problem, or any of the (few) people who have been comfortable enough to talk to us?”
“How truthful are these accusations anyway? Is the person who makes them trustworthy?”
“Why focus on such things? The church as a whole has had a positive influence on the world.”
“Not all churches are like this. Ours isn’t.”
“If you hate it so much here, why not go somewhere else?”
Again, if you heard any of these from a real person in response to honest feedback, what would you think?
Which one of the attitudes above addresses the problem at hand?
Which one of them validates the critic’s concern?
Which one of them gives us any hope the problem will be treated seriously?
The troubling thing is, we’ve learned over time we can’t expect the church to act any other way.
I still remember the incredulous rage I felt when after Ravi Zacharias’s downfall, the majority of responses from the church [men] was, “It could happen to any of us.”
True, there were calls for greater accountability of charismatic leaders—apparently, for all the talk of regeneration and living in the Spirit, more policing from big brothers is still the best way to go.
Few if any commentators addressed the toxic masculinity culture rampant in many denominations, the unhealthy way the church approaches sexuality, or the ethos of female submission that pretty much preprograms women to let others infringe on their boundaries and makes it that much harder to spot when harm is being done to them.
The ploys above can’t even be called legitimate answers. Their aim is to distract, to manipulate, to attack, to destroy. And disappointed churchgoers know that. That’s why they would rather up and leave quietly rather than start a purported “conversation” about what they perceive to be a serious problem in the fellowship.
Ironically, the democratic society, in all its evil, rottenness, and depravity, has been thoughtful enough to carve out substantial space for its own criticism.
Governments spend large chunks of their budget promoting culture, education, and the arts even though these disciplines frequently produce scathing evaluations of their sponsors.
The (more or less) free press is another example. Often called “the fourth power,” it is a vital part of the checks and balances system in the democratic society. Its quality, availability, and freedom are often seen as an indicator of the country’s general health.
In church, this self-doubting element is mostly lacking.
There is no equivalent to “the fourth power.” I bet you’ve never seen a church play that pokes fun at the fact that the last reform the institution has had was five hundred years ago.
Many churches have their publications or bulletins, but again, I’ve yet to see an article that criticizes the pastor’s unscientific comments on depression made the Sunday before or brings attention to the scarcity-based dating culture prevalent in the Christian circles.
I have encountered such critiques outside of the church, of course. But that’s the thing—if you’re a churchgoer and you attempt criticism from within, you run a real risk of becoming a Cassandra.
If your concerns are heard at all, they will likely be deflected in one of the ways shown above, and the Lord’s church will stand unmoved.
In fact, many Christian congregations, with their ethos of “being separated from the world,” have been social bubbles long before this term was coined in reference to our consumption of various media. And it’s actually a point of pride for many denominations how they move to limit diversity in doctrine and practice, restrict the areas open for interpretation, demonize compromise and fixate on their understanding of “purity.”
Have you ever heard of a church where pro-birth and pro-choice believers join forces to offer meaningful support to mothers who run on empty?
Yes, me neither. It’s hard enough to find a fellowship that is a bit more diverse in terms of how it approaches the gifts of the Spirit.
And so, congregations increasingly become communities whose members believe essentially the same, carefully worded things, recycle the same tired answers to the perceived arguments of the imagined “atheist,” repeat the same old testimonies, and idealize the state of the “first love,” when they were really excited about their faith. (Medicine tells us stunted growth is a serious symptom, but that’s just an unrelated observation).
Sadly, Christian churches are also places where narcissistic personalities can finally find their audience and throw their weight around with impunity.
This is not to say that church members do not criticize their congregations; they do, of course. However, in the absence of a legitimate outlet for their grievances, much of the venting is done in the form of disempowered murmuring and gossip. Those who do speak up before leaving have usually waited too long and now are bitter and angry, which makes effective communication that much harder. We have already established above that if the church were a person, its ego would be judged exceptionally brittle.
Granted, comparing the church to the modern democratic state will only get us as far in the discussion: the state’s objectives, scope, and budget are different. There are churches that operate like states. But in many parts of the world, Christian congregations are run by largely volunteer efforts and with limited resources.
Criticizing volunteers sounds a bit harsh, doesn’t it? After all, they already do so much! (Frequently too much. The ministry burnout is real.)
However, even in a volunteer-based organization, there usually is a vetting process and a training period. The last time I thought of volunteering at a (non-Christian) charity, the training curriculum covered such matters as burnout prevention, spotting manipulation, limited trust principle, and not getting too attached to the people you’re helping.
Now, I wish I could see this little bit of distance in church, where every enterprise becomes part of the exhausting struggle “against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
The sad reality is that many congregations don’t have the resources—the personnel, the knowledge, the maturity—to be the safe spaces they are making themselves out to be.
The church, which in one breath tells you it’s a community of saints who will “judge angels” and then warns you of wolves in sheepskin lurking in its midst, constructs a massive taboo against doubt—but doesn’t really warn you against too much belief.
It doesn’t tell new believers, “You’re going to hear a lot of things in church, also from the pulpit. Use the Scripture to assess how true they are.” Or, “Establish some boundaries in how you let the church micromanage aspects of your life.” Or, “Church attracts a lot of broken people. Be careful who you trust. Just because someone seems on fire for God doesn’t mean they are not disturbed.”
Regardless of the church’s government model, we urgently need a conversation about how to be intentional in carving out a space in the church that is dedicated to its honest criticism. And no, the familiar exhortations about how the church has been very bad and how it needs to be punished don’t really count.
Legitimizing criticism from within could be as simple as setting up a dedicated ministry, a discussion group, or a periodic review of the church culture. Any of it would be a step toward creating a community where systematic feedback is a matter of fact and honest questions are allowed to linger, even if they are unanswered.
Above all, we need a conversation about where the rabbit hole of church purity is taking us.
It’s true that different people like different things, and having a diversity of churches on the market is to an extent natural.
But there is also something eerily totalitarian about the way some Christians seek to stamp out any freethinking on the faith they see themselves as sole guardians to.
Here’s what you think, here’s how you feel, here’s how you vote, here’s how you dress, here’s how you spend your free time, here’s who you marry, here’s what you do in bed, here’s how you raise your kids, here’s when you can divorce, that is, if we allow you to divorce at all.
Then, if the churchgoer has to deal with the fallout of applying the church’s inept micromanagement to their own life, it’s usually hands off—the problem is on your side. We have done everything by the Book.
Like all meaningful discussions, this conversation should start with a little bit of doubt. A question.
The presence of someone who disagrees with us.
It’s a historical fact that people are capable of astonishing cruelty if they believe their behavior is sanctioned by a deity.
So let’s suppose—purely hypothetically, of course—that God isn’t on our side, after all. Just for the argument’s sake. We don’t have the full authority of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Trinity. We only have naked facts. Naked abuse. Naked barbarity.
How does my church look now? My behavior? My belief? The daily practice of my faith?
What about you? Do you think critical thinking is incompatible with the Christian doctrine? If you go to church, is there a space for systematic criticism? What could be the equivalent of “the fourth power”? Can you relate to the dangers of church bubbles?
A word of caution: I am not a religious trauma counselor. If you have been hurt by institutionalized religion to the point that it is seriously affecting your daily life (panic attacks, uncontrollable anger, loss of focus, constant triggering, numbness, and out-of-body experiences), I strongly urge you to stop reading and contact a health professional near you. Your pain is real and should be attended to.
“The presence of someone who disagrees with us” is inspired by Christopher Hitchens, a real-life (not imagined) atheist and a fierce free speech advocate.
The quote about the struggle against the cosmic powers comes from Eph 6:12 (ESV).
For a Polish or Portuguese translation, please contact me directly. I’d love to hear from you!