Two Houses

On navigating our ongoing mistrust.

I have fled to you for refuge.

Psalm 143:9

In this post I want to explore two prominent “houses” that deeply inform our faith commitments: the House of Stay and the House of Fled.

Think of their foundations less as fixed realities and more as postures held by people of faith.

Both houses include followers of Jesus and both claim a shared history. You can find diverse groups and theological traditions within the two households. While I’m focusing on Christianity here, you may observe these dynamics within other faiths too. Although the House of Fled may trend younger (at least in the U.S.), the two houses are not a generational or political grouping. The residential commitments are fluid, but today many of us are wondering if we can embody a shared faith—because the mistrust between the two houses is palpable.

Do we belong to each other? Or are we growing apart? Selah

The House of Stay

Here we find the house of establishments and institutions. When people confront corruption and structural problems within, members of the House of Stay ask first, “where else would we go?” They hear Jesus’ words to Peter, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it,” (Mt. 16:18) as an ode to fortifying the institutions, buildings, and budgets that stand as a fulfillment to this promise.

The House of Stay tends to equate its established status with the presumption of a lifelong commitment to longstanding entities, regardless of problems real or perceived. Members hold that change, when necessary, must happen from within and by the confines of its existing structures. According to the “bylaws”, the enduring preservation of the house is the clearest modicum of integrity.

There are noble qualities in the House of Stay, most notably its appreciation for lineage and form. Many customs and convictions of Christian faith are worth preserving. But difficulties arise when members of this house begin to personify the Establishment as though it is made in the image of God—implying that institutions and their structures are at least as valuable as the human beings that inhabit them.

For this reason, it is quite common for the House of Stay to receive the House of Fled with contempt. Often Stay members will reject the pleas and laments of Fled members out of hand. The very idea of Fled provokes a visceral response of illegitimacy.

The House of Fled

If Stay-ers ask, “where else would we go?” the House of Fled was forced to ask, “where do we go from here?” They hear Jesus’ words in John 13:35, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another,” as a litmus of spiritual vitality.

A common biographical thread among members of the House of Fled is a rupture experience that made the House of Stay 1) unbearable because of pain, 2) untenable because of forced removal, or 3) both. This is a house that fled the gaslighting utopia of Staying for the undesirable mission of Staying Alive.

The ruptures include abuse, betrayal, revelations of institutional corruption, etc. For Fled residents, the idea of reinvestment in institutions brings visceral trepidation. It was never as simple as, “just find another Stay village,” because so many institutions have shared (and harmful) roots. On top of that, enduring abuse and betrayal once from a community is enough to nearly cripple a person.

The House of Fled is most concerned about the interpersonal safety and solidarity of a community that is willing to offer refuge and relationship, regardless of “perception” or expense. They’re looking for places with a shared vocabulary of abuse and power differentials. They’re willing to imagine community—including nontraditional expression—that vows itself to dignity over Establishment Loyalty.

The danger for Fled residents is to allow fear of re-injury, or hardness toward Stay-ers, to prevent them from trusting any community to accompany their healing—leading to severe isolation.

Divergence or Repair?

As long as the accounts of Fled members are met with condescension and dismissal by Stay-ers, efforts toward repair will be futile. But as I noted in the beginning, the fluid nature of membership in both houses means there will likely always be bids toward healing, justice, and reconciliation.

People arrive daily from the House of Stay into the Embassy of Fled. Conversely, some Fled residents do manage to find real refuge in an institution.

As a pastor fleeing Tarshish today, my allegiance is with the House of Fled because it is our story. I want to imagine a Body of Christ that does not have to discard people and forsake its integrity by becoming a “prospering organization.” At the same time, I am willing to make bids (alongside others) toward repair with the House of Stay—for those who earnestly want to listen. I won’t universally condemn institutions and their value, nor will I tolerate their shoulder shrugging about systemic sins. Remember, it’s not about the differing theological positions of “church.” It’s about the posture.

You may align yourself with one house or the other. You may be presently invested in an institution or have decided, “never again.” As a pastor, I will respect wherever you are in the journey. But I’ve learned that it’s okay to limit partnerships going forward, as well as who gets access to my heart now.

There are many like me who have decided we won’t wait around anymore while institutions give us the runaround on matters of dignity, justice, and integrity. We’ll be as mobile as we need to be in the years to come in order to remain close to Jesus. Contrary to the suspicions of many Stay-ers, it was his voice that assured us when we fled.