AP

Recognising Our True Friends: On Criticism of the Institutional Church

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend;  profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (Proverbs 27:6).

Sometimes the best service that can be rendered is to wound. None of us is perfect. We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). We all do, and say, things that are contrary to God’s revealed standard. And this means we need faithful friends who will faithfully wound us. Those who would flatter us or downplay our sin are our enemies – not our friends.

To insulate ourselves from criticism, from reproof and from challenge is to insulate ourselves from the reproof of Scripture itself (2 Timothy 3:16). To surround ourselves with flatterers is prideful folly.

This might seem so obvious as not to need saying. Of course, easier said than done. God grant us a few faithful friends who will not hesitate to wound us. And God grant us the humility and wisdom to accept their correction.

So why is it that institutions so often behave in precisely the contrary manner? As if any criticism is a threat to its interests? As if any criticism is to be shunned, ignored, dismissed, or even prevented?

Regrettably, the institutional church seems no more ready to accept the wounds of a friend than secular institutions. History shows that the institutional church is readier than most to ignore criticism. History also demonstrates that this is an ineffectual strategy.

The institutional church has one – and only one – raison d’être: to support and promote the gospel. It has no other purpose, and does not exist for its own sake. If a denomination fails to preach the gospel in a God-honouring and biblical manner, God will no doubt raise up other vehicles for His kingdom purposes. In a sense, therefore, the institutional church can have no interests of its own. Promoting or protecting the institutional church is only a legitimate preoccupation if there is a gospel rationale for doing so.

One of the greatest dangers to the effective functioning of any institution is groupthink. Where there is one single, official view, one official channel of communication, and many nodding heads.

Where there is no effective opposition, governments have free rein to implement their policies and may largely do as they please (as Victoria has had recent occasion to observe). In the corporate sector, where board members do not ask hard questions, management may act with little oversight or scrutiny. The litany of corporate collapses and financial crises in this quarter century alone provides abundant evidence of the fruit of such ineffectiveness.

And a church or denomination without faithful friends is a fertile environment for spiritual abuse to flourish. We recognise such failures in the governmental and corporate sectors, so what about the church? Too often no one is prepared to rock the boat. Too often no one is prepared to ask hard questions. Too often we agree to things that we have reservations about, because we do not wish to be on the losing side.

One of the favourite barbs in the arsenal of Roman Catholic controversialists is the disunited state of Protestantism. The Reformation fractured the unity of Christendom, resulting in an endless proliferation of sects and denominations. By contrast, the Roman church displays an impressive institutional coherence, united under the headship of the pope and the magisterium.

Scratch the surface, however, and there is enormous diversity within the global Roman church, on matters ranging from theology, ethics, liturgy, government, and much more. The impressive institutional veneer of unity conceals many differences.

Milton famously quipped that “new Presbyter is but Old Priest writ Large”. The Presbyterian church needs to beware lest it adopt papalist modes of governance.

In Revelation 2–3, Jesus sent messages to the seven churches in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Only two churches escaped without rebuke (Smyrna and Philadelphia). All of the other churches were in serious danger – even to the point that Christ would come and wage war against them (Rev 2:16). Not a battle they would be likely to win.

Perhaps the starkest words of all are these, addressed to the church at Sardis: “I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (Rev 3:1). These rebukes were words of life.

Being wounded is rarely pleasant. No one enjoys being confronted with one’s sin. Wounding is chastening and humbling work. But the harvest is precious:

“For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:11).

The natural tendency of institutions – ecclesiastical and otherwise – is to resist criticism and challenge. But this is a mistake. Closing off avenues of criticism and debate is closing one’s institutional ears to one’s friends. Notice from Proverbs 27:6 that the friend is the one who criticises, rebukes and challenges, while the one who flatters, compliments and praises is the enemy.

A single, curated official line communicated through the official channels and immunised from vigorous debate is not apt to reach robust conclusions. “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). In order to reach the truth on any given matter, all sides need to be heard. “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17).

The testimony of Church history is that ignoring or suppressing dissenting voices does not make them go away. They will be printed in tracts and books, smuggled into countries, nailed to the door of churches – even published on blogs.

Does the church really think that it is above criticism, challenge, correction and reproof? How is such a view consistent with Scripture?

Every person needs a small number of faithful friends, who are prepared to wound. If that is so of individuals, why not of the church? May God give the church the wisdom to recognise its true friends – those who will faithfully administer wounds.

– Dr B B Saunders is a legal academic. He blogs at https://saeculum.blog.