Bjcorbin's Blog

The question of whether man is basically good, or basically evil has long been a matter of philosophical debate.  The increasingly popular Humanist perspective includes a strong element of faith in the inherent virtue of the human spirit and even supposes that a culture left to its own devices (i.e., separated from ancient religious ideas and morality), will quite naturally evolve into a utopian society.  As John Lennon mused in his masterful ballad “Imagine,” they believe that we must rid ourselves of notions like heaven, hell and religion, so that we can all live together as one. 

On the other side of the coin would be the Reform Theology doctrine of “Total Depravity,” which purports that man’s sinful nature is bound to contaminate every part of his being, which ultimately dooms him to darkness, unless God Himself chooses to intervene.

I believe that a thorough overview of the scripture presents a more balanced picture.  Indeed, men are created in the image of God (Gen.1:27), thus they come with an inherent capacity to reflect Him.  Even folks who have not come to know the Lord in a personal way can be loving, charitable, compassionate, neighborly…  And while that may not be all that it needs to be from an eternal perspective (Matt.7:23), it hardly qualifies as totally depraved or evil.

On the other hand, the scripture does acknowledge that our sinful nature presents a constant battle (Gal.5:17-25) and warns that those who choose not to engage in that struggle will quite naturally wander into the darkness (Pro.14:12).  Thus, I believe it would be right to say that all men come with a capacity to do what is good, and to fall to what is evil (Deut.30:19).

Unfortunately, there is also very natural tendency to try to place people in either the “good” category, or the “bad” category.  Ultimately, either categorization proves to be problematic.

For the Humanist, who presumes that people are fundamentally good, the evidence that they may not be presents a conundrum.  Once an individual falls into the bad category, there is no way back (i.e., no forgiveness, no redemption, no rehabilitation).  They have to be treated as outliers, who need to be expunged from the record.  This is at the root of “Cancel Culture,” where we must erase any evidence of their existence (e.g., teardown the statue, revise the history, rename the park…).

For the Christian, who should have an awareness of man’s frailties (John 15:5), such a fall should not be shocking.  Throughout scripture we see heroes of the faith repeatedly fall to their human nature (e.g. Abraham, Moses, David, Samson, Jonah, Elijah, Peter, Paul…), which only serves to highlight the Lord’s ability and desire to redeem that which is broken.  In theory, this is a way in which the church should look very different from the world, but sadly, that is rarely the case.

When it comes to elevating a person’s status, the penchant to turn mere men (or women) into idols seems to be as prevalent within the church as it is in the culture.  In such cases our classification of them as “good” often grows to a point that we become blind to their potential for weakness and bestow presumptions of honor and virtue they may not possess.  The grander these suppositions become, the further they have to fall, and the greater the potential for substantial damage.

The litany of abuse at the hands of ministry leaders within the Liturgical, Evangelical, and Pentecostal movements clearly testifies to the dangers of presuming the basic goodness of an individual and treating them as though they are above reproach.  Often times these idols have become so sacred that followers refuse to believe that they are capable of such atrocities and choose to villainize their victims instead.

Recent ministry scandals demonstrate the degree to which the “church” has fallen into both the “good guy” and “bad guy” dynamics.  Allegations again Mike Bickle (International House of Prayer) and Dr. Michael Brown (Author, Speaker, Apologist) were met with great skepticism, as both were perceived to be “good guys.”  To their devoted followers it seemed incomprehensible that any of these stories might be true.  It was easier to disparage the credibility of their victims, and to claim that this was all just some sort of demonic attack on “God’s anointed ones”.

Yet, after a season of adamant denials, there seemed to be a tempered concession of impropriety by both men.  But even after these claims were largely substantiated, there were (and are) a significant number of devotees who refuse to acknowledge these failures or the damage caused by them.  For them, restoring these idols to their pedestal remains the primary focus.

On the other end of the spectrum is singer Michael Tait, a former member of notable Contemporary Christian Music bands, DC Talk and The Newsboys.  Unlike the previously mentioned ministers, Tait willingly stepped down from his platform and confessed to living a “double life”.  Though he hasn’t corroborated all the claims against him, he has admitted that many of them are true.  But his confession has been met with little grace.  Just as the world does, he has been thrown into the “bad guy” pile, from which there is no return.

Now the cancel culture machine is busy making sure that his former band (The Newsboys) isn’t allowed to make records anymore (i.e. cancelled recording contract), can’t play live music (i.e. cancelled tour dates) and that his music is never played on the radio again (i.e. DC Talk and Newsboys removed from Christian Radio).  If all goes as planned, they may soon erase any evidence that he was ever involved in the business.

Understand that I am not advocating for or against any of this response, I’m simply pointing out that this is another example of the church taking their cues from the culture instead of from the Spirit of God.  We need to ask ourselves, has God cancelled Michael Tait?  Has He thrown Him in the eternal dust bin?  Have we forgotten that the measure we use with him, is the measure that will be used for us (Matt.7:2)?

This touches on another aspect of this good guy / bad guy paradigm.  Once someone gets in the bad guy column, we have the tendency to go back and rewrite their history.  We cannot accept they may have been a sincere and devoted follower of Christ, who simply got off track.  We assume that they were always a snake, who simply deceived everyone along the way. 

Ultimately, I believe this is a hedge against admitting to ourselves that we might be susceptible to the same temptations (i.e. they fell because they are bad guys, and we won’t fall because we are good guys).  But once again, scripture does not support such a rationalization.

Saul’s failure as the king did not erase the fact that he was hand picked by God, and for many years walked in humility and submission to his calling.  David’s adultery and conspiracy to commit murder did not get Him thrown into the “bad guy” pile with all of the other failed kings of Israel.  Jonah’s disobedience didn’t earn him the silent treatment from God.  Neither Peter’s denial, nor Judas’ betrayal allowed gospel writers to record that there were only 10 actual disciples.  The Lord didn’t redact all the unsavory parts of their stories.  In fact, they became crucial parts of their testimonies.

If we admitted to ourselves that we’ve helped create the dynamic that allows certain ministers/ministries to act without accountability, we’d also have to own our part of the damage that has been caused by that. 

I am in no way trying to justify Michael Tait, or his actions.  Clearly, he got way off track and people got hurt.  There are certainly repercussions that come with all that, but such things are better left to the Lord.  We, as followers of Christ, have a calling to reflect His mind and His heart to a dying world, thus how we handle a brother who falls matters.  Simply mimicking the world’s process for dealing with these types of situations fails to rise to the standard of that high calling.  That failure also has repercussions.

I have to ask myself, did I resonant with the Newsboy’s worship songs because Michael Tait was the singer, or because the Spirit of God bore witness to them?  And if it’s the latter, does that somehow change because he was the vocalist?  Is it about the message or the minister?  How clean does a vessel have to be before we can receive from them?  And as ministers are we ready to have our lives examined to that degree?

I would submit that mankind’s stubborn belief in “good guys”, “bad guys” and in our ability to distinguish between the two, is a byproduct of the fruit that the first man chose in the garden.  God never intended for our faith to be invested in mere men, or in our ability to discern what it good, and what is evil.  He entrusted those things to His Spirit, which is why Jesus told His disciples that it was better that He go and allow the Spirit to come to them (John 16:7). 

God doesn’t look at men the way we look at each other (1 Sam.16:7), and He has no use for the categories we assign to each other.  He has given us the Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Cor.5:16-21), and we are His ambassadors.  If we are to be known by the way we love one another (John 13:35), these situations are opportunities for Him to be glorified (Col.1:27).  His sheep know His voice, they listen and they follow (John 10:27).

Read Full Post »