Safe Doctrine, by Scott Shirley

Growing up in the Church of Christ I have often heard people use a phrase like, “better safe than sorry” when defending certain doctrines or beliefs. For instance, when asked about worshipping without the accompaniment of musical instruments, many people would respond by saying that “obviously” singing without instruments is okay because we see instances of acapella worship in the New Testament. And if it is in the New Testament it can’t be wrong.


Or when addressing particular divorce and remarriage issues a struggling brother or sister may be told that the most prudent course of action is to remain unmarried if they aren’t sure their divorce is scriptural. Otherwise they run the risk of entering into an “adulterous marriage.” Better safe than sorry.

Weekly observance of the Lord’s supper is another example where the “safe” argument is sometimes used. In Acts 20:7 we read, “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.” Since they came together on the first day to break bread we can assume that our coming together for the same reason and on the same day is a “safe” position.

I am aware that all three of the above positions may be defended in more ways than just the “better safe than sorry” argument. But the “safe” argument has held a lot of sway on many, including me, for many years so I want to focus on it in this article. In fact, this kind of thinking has become so ingrained in our mindset that it has infiltrated other areas of our decision making.

It isn’t uncommon for Church leadership, after being approached about a new ministry or novel programming idea, to hear vigorous complaints from a vocal minority if and when the new idea becomes common knowledge. In an effort to play it safe and not risk offending anyone, the new gets swept under the rug in deference to the traditional. Better safe than sorry.

While it may seem the wise and prudent course of action to not do something that will ruffle feathers, this kind of thinking comes with a high price. Once it becomes evident that leadership will tend to shy away from anything new in the face of opposition, even if the opposition is a decided minority, it will inevitably foster an environment where change of any kind becomes nearly impossible.

People don’t like change because it is uncomfortable. If we can, without much consequence, we will always gravitate toward the known, the traditional. But Christianity isn’t about avoiding change. It is all about change. And I am afraid that our “prudent” decisions can so infect our thinking as to ultimately inhibit not just our ability to make programming changes at Church but also risks inhibiting our ability to affect change within ourselves.

But what about the scriptural disposition that playing it safe is, well, safe? Are the scriptures trying to tell us that the wisest course of action is to limit ourselves to only the things we see written in the New Testament? Why? What if God was attempting to show us only what was the best course of action for 1st century Corinth, Rome, or Antioch. Maybe the message we are supposed to be getting is that it is imperative we use Godly principles in order to implement the best course of action for 21st century Christians. What worked best for 1st century Jews may not be what works best for 21st century southerners... or yankees.

I suspect that I will be inundated with verses that are used to support the idea that anything we do in worship has been laid down in a clear manner for all time. But all such attempts must start from the assumption that our “worship service” (a concept itself that is difficult to support biblically) IS laid out for us in an unbendable fashion. Is it? I am not so sure.

Is it possible that playing it “safe” is the riskiest thing a Church can do? Is it possible that by playing it safe we have inadvertently buried our talents in the ground out of fear of the master? If so, he may not be as pleased with our prudence as we have supposed.

What say ye?