Pierre weekly free press. (Pierre, S.D.) 1889-19??, 1915-01-28
THROWING BRICKS AT ,
The CHURCH.

BY CHARLES STELZLE.

BY CHARLES sTELzLE.
Church Efficiency Expert and Consulting
Sociologist: Formerly Head of the
Social Service Bureau of the
Presbyterian Church.
1t Is popular sport to shy bricks at
the church. Everybody takes more or
less exercise in this way. 1t is almost
as popular as knocking the boss. The
same old bricks have been used SO Oft
en- that the sharp corners have been
worn off. They no longer Jolt he
church.
Some of the bricks thrown by its
critics never did jar the church, be-
cause they did not hit the mark. The
criticism was unjustifiable, n there
fore the church did not take the bricks
seriously.
No doubt the church deserved many
Of the bricks hat came it's way. 1t
appeared at times thai the church de-
liberatalS invited them, because 1t
made itself such a shining mark on
account Of ccclesiastical stupidity or
Indifference.
At such times q good many bricks
were also thrown by people inside the
church. And the church. las always
been angricr because Of these internal
assaults than because of traCks from
without. Perhaps this was perfectly
natural. But the fact that bricks We're
lIlloWIl Wy tlt CIluItll pCOPlS lAASl1i
selves proved that the church is not
dead.
II there were no readjustrents with
in the church excepting those that
come as a result Of criticism from
without. the situation would be hope
less. If the church made no move to-
ward self Improvement excepting when
outside students of it's work find fault
with it, hen it would be a sure sign
of inefficiency or general debility.
There is no doubt that the critics in
side the church nave beer more spe-
cific in their diagnosis than those out
side, largely because their study was
more intelligent and based on q larger
group of facts.
He is a foolish mar who would de-
nounce the physician who tells hin
about the disease that is Slowly but
surely undermining his health and de-
stroying his usefulness. The truth
may not be very palatable, but it is
very necessary.
comes needful to point out to the
church those things wherein it lacks,
it involves q certain amount OF pub
licity that may seem to bring the
church into d%isrepute among those
whom it is desired to attract to the
church.
But for the church to claim in
I'll HSi L "a 10 y Is ioll
would be absurd. We are not discuss
ing the question of doctrine; this is
not involved in the matter under con-
s%ideration. although 1T may well be in
Guided.
1t would greatly strengthen the pro-
,osition Of the church among sensible
and sincere people IL it We're openly tic
acknowledge that 1t has been in error
regarding certain practices or methods
of work, but the church should make
this confession before outsiders begin
to charge it with failure.
Such an attitude on the part of the
church would certainly disar1n mos,
church. The ability to discern ones
errors and the courage to confess thai
one has made a mistake are the fndi-
cations Of a big soul. After all, the
church is composed Of many bi9-soulec
| people, but they are just people. Dom
forget this.
Even the group that composed tn.
| church in the days when Peter ant
| the rest of the disciples We're in i'm.
| mediate control sometimes made mis-.
takes. Do you recall the economic sys.
TEN introduced by some large-heartet
Christians in this company who be.
| lieved that they should hold all prop.
| erty in common? This communistit
proposition did not work very well. l
DTCI uSCGll eillu liouu, AZ piupcl lESS
| certain of the Jerusalem saints" ant
was soon given up.
On another occasion the Jewish con
| verts to Christianity a been insiStin.
that the converts from among thu
| Gentilas should subject themselves t.
the same forms and ceremonies OBJ
| served by the Jews. A general con
! ference was held, at which the entiT'
subject was discussed, and 1t was de
cided that this practice was wrong an,
unfair and should be discontinued. I
proclamation was sent out to this eff
feet. 1t would have been absurd t.
have insisted upon infallibility il
either of these cases, particularly a
they both had to do merely witt
methods of work and general customs
The practices OF the church are tn
result of an evolutionary process. 1t i
necessary for the church TO adapt itsel
| to changing conditions. 1t is a Ehea]
| sentimentalism, and often a sure sigl
of laZiness, when a representative o
the church declares that the church /
the same yesterday. today and for
ever" and that it cannot change 1t
attitude toward modern social and re
ligious problems.
1t may be a comfortable thing t.
shut ones eyes to things as they are
but a leadership that does so is yer,
suggestive of something that was one
said about "the blind leading tn
blind"
With relation to the practice o
throwing bricks at the church, j
should be borne in mind that this pc
rogative belongs by right only to thos
who are identified with the church
Those who are outsiders" have n
business to criticise an organizatio,
that they neither support o believ
in.
4 - NJ ~et - -~>,J;n~ f0~4oE &
most freedom in religious thought All,
practice. II an individual church, o
the church az a whole. engages in worl
because OF certain clear-cut convic
tons and is willing to pay the bill