The Tabor independent. [volume] (Tabor, S.D.) 1913-19??, 1915-01-28
THROWING BRICKS AT
THE CHURCH.


++%%%%+&%AA%%%%+%%%%%++++%
BY CHARLES sTELzLE.
Church Efficiency Expert and Consulting
Sociological; 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 the
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, and there
fore the church did not take the bricks
seriously.
No doubt the church deserved many
OF the bricks that came its way. It
appeared at times that the church de-
liberately invited them, because 1t
made itself such a shining mark on
account OF ecclesiastical stupidity or
Indifference.
At such times q good many bricks
were also thrown by people inside the
church. And the church, has always
been angrter because Of these internal
assaults than because Of attacks from
without. Perhaps this was perfectly
natural. But the fact that bricks were
thrown by the church people them
selves proved that the church is not
dead.
II there were no readjustments with
in the church excepting those that
come as result of criticism from
without, the situation would be hope
less. II the church made no move to-
ward self improvement excepting when
outside students of it's work find fault
with than yV0ulH ha EIIra zip11
of inefficiency or general debility.
There Is no doubt that the critics in
side the church have been more spe-
cific in their diagnosis than those out
side, largely because their study was
more intelligent and based on a larger
group Of facts.
He Is a foolish man who would de-
nounce the physician who tells him
about the disease that is slowly but
surely undermining his health and de-
stroying his usefulness. The truth
may not be very palatable, but 1t is
very necessary.
1t is unfortunate that when 1t be-
comes needful to point out to the
church those things wherein it lacks,
1t involves a certain amount Of pub
licity that may seem to bring the
church into disrepute among those
whom 1t is desired to attract to the
church.
But for the church to claim in
faIlibility or perfection in its program
would be absurd. We are not discuss
ing the question of doctrine; this is
not involved in the matter under con-
sideration, although 1T may well be in
Guided.
It would greatly strengthen the pro-
position Of the church among sensible
and sincere people IL 1t were openly to
acknowledge that It has been in error
regarding certain practices or methods
Of work. but the church should make
this confession before outsiders begin
to charge ii with failure.
Such an attitude on the part Of the
church would certainly disarm most
of the criticism one hears Of the
church. The ability to discern ones
errors and the courage to confess that
one has made a mistake are the ind-
cations OF a big soul. After all, the
church Is composed of many -souled
people, but they are just people. Don't
forget this.
Even the group that composed the
church in the days when Peter and
the rest of the disciples were in i'm
mediate control sometimes made mis-
takes. Do you recall the economic sys-
tenn introduced by some large-hearted
Christians in this, company who be-
lieved that they should hold all prop
erty in common? This communistic
proposition did not work very wen. 1t
bred deceit and fraud, it pauperized
certain of the Jerusalem saints" and
was soon given up.
On another occasion the Jewish con-
verts to Christianity had been insisting
that the converts from among the
Gentiles should subject themselves to
the same forms and ceremonies OBJ
served by the Jews. A general con-
ference was held, at which the entire
subject was discussed, and 1t was de-
cided that this practice was wrong and
unfair and should be discontinued. A
proclamation was sent out to this eff
feet. 1t would have been absurd to
have insisted upon infallibility in
either of these cases, particularly as
they both had to do merely with
methods of work and general customs.
The practices of the church are the
result of an evolutionary process. 1t is
necessary for the church to adapt itself
to changing conditions. 1t Is a cheap
sentimentalism, and often a sure sign
of laZiness, when a representative of
the church declares that the church Is
the same yesterday, today and for
ever" and that 1t cannot change its
attitude toward modern social and re-
ligiouS problems.
It may be q comfortable thing to
shut ones eyes to things as they are.
but a leadership that does so Is very
suggestive Of something that was once
said about ''the blind leading the
blind"
With relation to the practice of
throwing bricks at the church, it
should be borne in mind that this pc
rogative belongs by right only to those
who are identified with the church.
Those who are outsiders" have no
business to criticise an organization
that they neither support nor believe
in.
This applies with peculiar force in
this country, where we permit the ut
most freedom In religious thought and
practice. If. an individual church, or
the church al a whole, engages in work
because Of certain clear-cut convfc-
tons and Is willing to pay the bill,
who may deny it that right? An out