Throughout my lifetime I have heard countless people attest to the fact that they feel as though they “never really fit it,” which is a sentiment that is generally greeted with a hearty chorus of amens. Even folks who seem to be popular and successful often profess to battling such feelings. Indeed, in all my years I’ve never encountered even one person claim the converse of this condition (i.e., I feel like I always “fit in”).
I’ve heard Psychologists assert that most people wrestle with the subconscious fear that, “if you really knew me, you wouldn’t love me,” and I sense that is probably truer than any of us would like to admit. There does seem to be a very human tendency to conceal and safeguard the inner most part of our being for fear of being rejected. Though some experience traumatic levels of rejection at a very young age, this apprehension seems to be prevalent even in those who haven’t.
Anxiety about other people truly knowing us tends to manifest itself as insecurity, which then becomes a breeding ground for covetous, competition, envy, manipulation, and strife. Needless to say, all of those dynamics are highly destructive in terms of our relationship to others, which greatly impedes our ability to function as a family, a community or as a body of believers. Given Jesus’ description of how people would be able to distinguish His followers (i.e., by their strong, loving relationships -John 13:35), this would seem to be a significant issue for those who are called by His name.
In praying about the root of this problem, I sense that it goes all the way back to the first man, and his decision in the garden. When Adam and Eve were walking in undeterred fellowship with the Father, they were aware of their nakedness, but they were unashamed (Gen.2:25). Yet immediately after eating the fruit, it says that their nakedness became a source of humiliation (Gen.3:7), and they felt the need to cover themselves.
Though the scripture doesn’t really describe these coverings, I sensed the Spirit clarify that they didn’t feel the need to cover their face, or hands, or legs… It was only the parts of them that looked different from each other that they felt compelled to conceal.
Prior to eating the” fruit of the knowledge of good and evil,” they viewed each other through the lens of the Father’s love, and were unashamed of their differences, but after the fall, they viewed each other through the context of their own senses, and were embarrassed by the things that made them unique.
Thus, mankind became mired in an endless cycle of comparison, covetousness, and competition, which turns out to be the antithesis of unity. This pattern became lethal within the first generation, as jealousy compelled Cain to murder his brother (Gen.4:8).
Considering that our Creator saw fit to make each one of His children a unique expression of Himself (Gen.1:27), and that Paul would later describe the Body of Christ as the coming together of all these distinctive aspects (1Cor.12:1-26), our apprehension at being vulnerable and genuine with one another is no doubt at the heart of our ineffectiveness in manifesting the body that the Lord described.
Our concept of “fitting in” seems to be predicated on the idea that we will be just like everyone else. So we tend to dress like the proverbial “them”, speak like them, and act like them, in the vain hope that we will find acceptance. But no two pieces of a puzzle are exactly alike, and if they were, a clear picture would not emerge at the end. I would suggest that we were not created to “fit in,” we were designed to “fit together”.
Yet, even if we come to recognize the power in diversity that potential can only be realized when each member of the group is willing to yield to the unique aspects of the others. The whole cannot partake of its rich variety of parts, if a singular element or elite grouping is allowed to dominate at the expense of the others.
Indeed, a clarinet was never meant to sound like a flute, and you actually need both to play the symphony as it was originally written. But you’re not likely to hear either of them if the brass continues to play beyond their prescribed stanzas.
Church models that promote some to be soloists, while making the remainder accompanists (or even worse, simply an audience) virtually ensure that we will never truly function as the body described in scripture (1Cor.12:12-20). Much of the new Apostolic movement has fallen into this trap, as they seek to elevate the position of a few, when the five-fold gifts were actually intended to cultivate the gifts of the many (Eph.4:12-13). Effective “Five-fold” ministry is when every member’s gift finds its place at the table (and every instrument is given its rightful place within the concerto).
Sadly, these mindsets (e.g., I never fit it, if you really knew me you wouldn’t love me…) have become strongholds within the body, and drive most people to willingly forfeit their seat within the orchestra. They will happily sit in the audience if it means that no one will ever truly see what is inside of them. And they will freely gather around someone else’s gifts, while their gifts go dormant.
There is little doubt that the enemy of our souls loves to stir our sense of alienation, so that we will willingly isolate ourselves from the group. It is a classic predator tactic. These feelings of estrangement are often at the emotional core of those who pursue and assume a completely new identity in the hope of finding a suitable new tribe (i.e., the place where they fit in).
Of course, the cost of pursuing a new identity is the identity that they were endowed with by their Creator, which tends to relentlessly haunt them in moments of quiet reflection. They suppose that no one can accept them for who they really are, when it is actually their innermost being that is rejecting this contrived facade.
If this compulsion to “fit in” and be like everyone else is a byproduct of mankind’s fall, then the antidote surely lies in returning to God’s original plan, which is to view ourselves and each other through the lens of the Father’s love (Psalm 139:14, John 13:34). Until we learn how to walk together in unity, by considering others before ourselves (Phil.2:3-4) and submitting to one another in love (Eph.5:21), we will not be able to experience the fullness the Lord authored for His Body (1Cor.12:12-20).
If we continue to fall into the snare of the compare-covet-compete dynamic, we will remain a house divided (Mark 3:25) and never step into the fulness that has been authored for us. For this, and so many other issues, the renewing of our minds (Rom.12:2) is at the heart of the “revival” we cry out for.
Institution – Industry – Idolatry
Posted in Commentaries, tagged abuse, accountability, adversity, allegations, authority, brand, character, charismatic, church, corporate, corporate sponsor, corruption, evamgelical, greed, humility, idolatry, industry, institution, least of these, legacy, manipulation, organism, poisonous fruit, rebuke, religious, transgression on June 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »
It is not particularly difficult to walk through a sun filled garden with a casual acquaintance, but in times of calamity, we desperately search for a true brother. Indeed, the strength of a relationship is best measured in the midst of adversity, which is also true within corporate entities (e.g., families, communities, organizations), such as the Body of Christ.
Some of the most inspirational stories in scripture are portraits of God’s people manifesting genuine faith in the midst of extraordinary adversity (e.g., Job, Joseph, Daniel, Shadrach-Meshach-Abednego, John the Baptist, Stephen), while some of its most ardent warnings center around those whose character fails in the critical moment (e.g., Balaam, Saul, Solomon, the rich young ruler, Judas, Ananias-Sapphira).
Adversity does not necessarily build character, but it almost always exposes it. Sadly, the true character of what identifies as “the church” in America has been repeatedly exposed in recent decades. This litany of failures speaks to both a weak connection to the Lord, and to each other.
Though religious leaders from various denominations had much to say when allegations of sexual abuse within the Catholic church first emerged, the chorus has diminished significantly in recent years, as eerily similar scandals have rocked the evangelical and charismatic movements. To a lost and dying world, there is no discernable difference in these instances.
The word that is most often interpreted as “church” within the scripture refers to a people who have been called out by God. It was never intended to rest upon a building or an institution. Though there is a legitimate corporate expression of this group, scripture points to a living, breathing organism; not an inanimate, man-made object or system.
But instead, we have created an industry called, “The Church”, and we’ve slapped Jesus’ name on our letterheads, and buildings, much like a corporate sponsor does on a stadium. Unfortunately, any system that men create is highly susceptible to corruption and abuse, and that has become the legacy of this guarded religious paradigm.
The Lord spoke to me some years ago about “Institutions,” and said, “institutions are created by man, and they are not sacred to Me”. He showed me that it is the people who inhabit these institutions that are precious to Him. But the men who create and promote such entities are more apt to protect the institution at the expense of people, which clearly opposes the Lord’s value system.
When an institution becomes a conduit for manipulation, abuse and destruction, it has completely perverted God’s design and desire. If a branch that does not produce fruit is cut off and thrown into the fire (John 15:6), what is the fate of branches that produce poisonous fruit.
Nothing seemed to stir Jesus’ ire like the religious leaders of His day, and the scripture is filled with stories of their ignorance and arrogance. But sadly, almost no one seems to see themselves in those stories, as the religious leaders of today continue to blindly walk into many of the same traps.
A clear pattern of failure was demonstrated by Israel’s very first King. Saul did not promote himself to the position of king, nor was he nominated by his peers, he was literally picked out of the crowd (1Sam.9:17) and chosen by God (1Sam.10:24). At that time, he was humble (1Sam.9:21), anointed (1Sam.10:1), gifted (1Sam.10:13), and God had done a work in his heart (1Sam.10:9). And for a substantial period, Saul walked in that calling and anointing (i.e. 1Sam.11), fulfilling God’s purposes in his life.
But, sustained seasons of victory, and the praise of men eventually eroded Saul’s humility to the point that he felt empowered (or commissioned) to make decisions of his own (1Sam.15:9). It wasn’t as if he stopped wanting to serve God, but his pride and greed caused him to overstep the bounds of his authority.
God’s response was quick and definitive (1Sam.15:11 & 23), and it’s hard not to see the parallel between his story and the narratives surrounding so many “anointed” (i.e. called, gifted, empowered) ministry leaders who’ve fallen throughout church history, especially in the recent past.
At the point David refused to lay his hands on “God’s anointed one” (1Sam.24:10), it was clear to him and everyone else that Saul had been rejected as the king of Israel. This passage is pointing towards David’s unwillingness to act without specific direction from the Lord, which is a foreshadowing of Jesus’ pledge that He couldn’t do anything without direct guidance from the Father. It is meant as an advocation of David’s heart, not a defense of Saul’s immutable position or calling.
Nothing in scripture supports the idea that calling, gifting, anointing… exempts a person from accountability. Indeed, quite the opposite is true (1 Tim.5:20, James 3:1). Within these stories, we see Samuel soundly rebuke Saul (1Sam.15:17-19), just as Nathan strongly rebukes David for his transgression with Bathsheba (2Sam.12:1-7). Chastening a king was a dangerous activity, even for a recognized prophet, but it was exactly what God called them to do.
A related aspect revealed in David’s story occurs toward the end of his reign, when he wants to build the temple. As he inquires of the prophet Nathan, he’s told that God is with him, and that he should do as he pleases (2Sam.7:3). There is nothing recorded that indicates that Nathan inquired of the Lord for this answer, and it appears to have come from his experience of being alongside David as he wins battle after battle.
It was a completely reasonable conclusion to draw, and on the surface, it seemed true, as God clearly was with David. But when Nathan takes the time to inquire of the Lord (2Sam.7:4), the answer is much different than he or anyone else expected.
This phenomenon is frequently played out in the modern context, as truly gifted people, who have eyes to see, are blinded by someone’s position, title, resume, success, giftings, callings, anointing… Like these prophets, they may have been called by God to confront issues, but they defer to what they see with their natural senses, or what they perceive to be a higher authority.
Nathan’s rebuke allowed David to repent, and to step back into the fullness of his calling. It’s hard not to believe that God hasn’t extended this same grace to so many other ministers who fell because no one was willing to confront them as they veered off course. Unfortunately, we have created a culture that struggles to tolerate such a confrontation.
Even when abusive leaders are uncovered, there seems to be an inappropriate sense of urgency to “restore” them to ministry. If we view these situations through the lens of a fallen brother (or sister), our concern should be about the restoration of their relationships with both the Lord and their loved ones. But when viewed through the lens of the church industry, it’s bad for business to have your most valuable players on the sideline, so the focus tends to be on getting them back on the field.
When people see ministries that are particularly successful, they are prone to elevate the ministers and their organizations to a place that God has reserved for Himself (i.e. our source, our covering, our provision). Regardless of the good work that has been, and/or is being done within a ministry, this still amounts to Idolatry. And while unquestioned loyalty to a man or ministry may be good for business, it can ultimately stir the resistance of God. In such cases, both the minister and the people bear some responsibility for establishing and preserving this relational dynamic.
The fact that people fall into sin is not surprising nor does it need to be traumatic to the whole body. The catastrophic damage is done when we turn a blind eye to these failures, and/or endeavor to cover them up. This further crushes the victims, violates the trust of the affected community, and empowers the abusers. The rationalization is that we are somehow mitigating the damage done to the “Body,” but in truth, it’s about protecting the entity (i.e., the minister, the ministry, the organization…) and its interests.
It is not wrong that organizations aspire to build a track record of effectiveness, but when protecting the brand becomes more important than protecting the people who inhabit the group, significant damage is inevitable. It begins subtly, as a disparity develops between the picture presented in front of the stakeholders, and the reality of what goes on behind the scenes. The longer that gap is allowed to exist and grow, the greater the depths to which an entity is bound to fall.
While we may rationalize that the prosperity of the brand benefits everyone, an institution’s legacy is ultimately rooted in how they treat their people. God’s perspective always boils down to the treatment of “the least of these (Matt.25:40).”
Rate this:
Read Full Post »