Our Safe Place

James 5:13-20

Mark 9:42-50

"Intimacy" is, for me, a polite word to use in mixed company that infers something intensely private and personal especially within the marriage covenant.  It is unfortunate that the word is not used more often because the word conveys something much more expressive and endearing and profound than any physical act or three-letter-word can.  And for those who immediately associate the word "intimacy" with that "three-letter-word", well, bless your hearts because our culture - and too often even the Church - is entirely too obsessed with that "three-letter-word" as the end-all, be-all to human relationships.  It need not be so even as it is an important component of the intimate, married relationship, but that single act is not what intimacy hinges on.

When we are able or enabled to be intimate, it means we have been given or have found a "safe place" where we do not have to hide but where we are also safe in hiding from a judgmental, demanding world.  This "safe place" is where we can be who we truly are, our complete selves without fear of judgment or ridicule.  It is where we can fully express not only what is on our minds but in our hearts and souls.  It is the place where fear simply does not exist.  It is the sanctuary of the soul.  And I dare say, where the Church should be that ultimate "safe place" in our culture, we still live in a society woefully short of honest-to-goodness "safe places" even though there seems to be a church on virtually every street corner.  Such is the shame of a judgmental Church that seems more concerned about what happens behind closed doors than what is happening right under its own nose ... and more is the pity because I think we miss out on a lot by being so narrowly focused.

It must be said, however, that the intimacy of the "safe place" is not a physical location, and it is not a place where we are alone.  There are safe locations, of course, and we can choose to be alone anytime we wish for any reason, but these do not constitute intimacy.  Intimacy involves closeness, fellowship, communion, friendship, mutual trust, and confidentiality to name only a few.  To be intimate, then, one must have someone with whom to BE intimate.  So in the married relationship, the very core must be by its nature intimate, private, safe; but the physical connection must necessarily be secondary for this very reason: we as humans will diminish in our physical capacity as we get older - and also for a variety of other reasons such as health issues or injuries - but our capacity to listen and comfort and care and protect and love will never diminish regardless of our physical capabilities.  So these are the attributes upon which a lasting relationship must be developed because these are the things which will last.

Love Dare© #17 says "Love promotes intimacy", but this Love Dare© challenge has nothing to do with the physical relationship.  There are many things that must take place before that physical relationship can ever be considered totally "safe".  I think about some of these ridiculous celebrities who have allowed themselves to be filmed or photographed in what they mistakenly believed to be "intimate" settings (or so they later claimed), but discovered soon enough that there was nothing "intimate" - nothing "safe" or "private" or "confidential" - about what took place.  It was purely physical, and the one holding the camera had ulterior motives with complete and utter disregard for the safety and well-being of the other.  But because our culture has turned us - and our young people - completely inside-out and upside-down about defining relationships and embracing intimacy for what it truly is, we have lost our sense of connectedness and community; the two things that define "relationship" AND the Church!

This, I think, is what James is trying to convey to the Church.  And I also think this may have been the model John Wesley had in mind when he established his "classes", those gatherings of the faithful, the small groups that were designed and intended for spiritual "intimacy" - and ultimately spiritual growth.  It was the place where the faithful were not only expected to confess their sins; it was also the place where transgressors were supposed to feel "safe" enough to confess.  It was the place where they could depend on their brethren to pray for them AND keep their sins "confidential" - never be used for gossip fodder ... and NEVER to be used against them for any reason!   The very fact that such an atmosphere no longer seems to exist in the Church may say more about the overall decline of the Church than anything else.

It is not always a matter of "whether" we actually confess our sins to one another (though we seem willing and EAGER to confess the sins of others!!); it is a matter of whether we feel "safe" enough to do so.  Even for Catholics who practice the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession), that practice is not nearly as widespread as it once was even though it is still preached as a necessary discipline of the Church AND as an essential component of spiritual growth. 

Think about it.  If there is some burden buried so deeply within us that we always have a "secret" we hope will never be discovered, would we not be more inclined to withdraw as a matter of self-preservation than to come forward and risk being exposed?  I think of my fascination with Mafia-themed movies.  It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would choose a life in which no one can be trusted, a life in which one can never sit with one's back to the door, a life in which one must learn to sleep with one eye open.  What sort of life is this??  From what I can see, they seem "dead" already because "their" life has already been taken from them.

It must also be noted that Jesus seems to mandate this "safe place" especially for the "little ones"; not only actual children but also those who are "little" in the faith, lacking sufficient spiritual maturity to stand against the temptations that surround us all.  Yet we can easily remove ourselves from this admonishment because Jesus clearly indicates we must not be the "cause" of someone stumbling; that is, actively and directly engaging in the sins of the weaker among us, actually encouraging their walk in darkness by our actions.  However, if we were to look a little closer and especially in terms of John Wesley's "class societies" and their intended purposes of spiritual "intimacy", can we say we are actively protecting the "little ones" if we ignore their plights, if we neglect them in their struggles?

A much broader application of what Jesus is talking about would indicate our obligation to notice who among us is the weaker; who the "little ones" are among us whom we are charged to protect.  The context seems disconnected at first glance, but I cannot help but to see a close connection between Jesus' admonishment and warning regarding the "little ones" - and the knowledge of what leads us (and those around us) into a state of sin; i.e., the "hand", the "foot", or the "eye".  I think maybe there is a direct correlation between what we might consider our "personal" or "private" sin - AND - the sins of others because it is rarely, if ever, that we can commit sin and not involve others on some level ... especially if we are known by others as "Christians"!

It seems to me we are necessarily "intimately" connected to one another in Christ - OR - the Church simply does not exist.  Our Lord has given each of us our "safe place" in the Covenant by which we confess our sins, repent of the old life which encouraged that sin, and find new life in and with one another as the community of faith, the Body of Christ.  Would the "hand" betray the "foot" as members of the same Body?   Of course not; nor should we betray one another and violate that necessary component of "intimacy" by which relationships only become stronger and much more able to withstand the challenges of life.

It is a colossal mistake to believe we can go it alone.  In this journey we share in Christ as the Head of the Church, we must learn to depend on one another and learn to trust one another; secrets, warts, and all!  If we cannot or will not, the Sacraments of the Church are meaningless.  We cannot receive a new soul by baptism if that soul is unwilling or unable to trust us with their spiritual growth, with their troubles.  And if this remarkable degree of separation exists in which we each seek our own without real concern for one another, Holy Communion is reduced to little more than a snack ... and not much of one at that!

As our Lord has taught - and commanded us: "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."  There is no peace without mutual trust, and there is no mutual trust apart from the intimacy of our faith in the Lord our God who came to us in the Person of Christ who taught us about the "safe place"; the Covenant.  Let us as the Body of Christ Himself recover and restore that "safe place", and let us become all the Lord has called us to be; the Church, the Covenant, the ultimate "safe place".