I was raised to believe that marriage is a “sacred institution”, and like so many of the ideas I grew up with, I never really questioned it. Even now, the concept still sounds reasonable to my ears. But in our years of trying to represent God’s heart to hurting people, the Lord has opened the eyes of my understanding in terms of what truly matters to Him.
I will warn you that I’ve never heard anything like this preached anywhere, and as with everything I share, I encourage you to test it by the Holy Spirit (which is significantly different than pondering how it might make you feel).
I should also preface this article with the fact that I have been divorced. For some that will taint my perspective, and for others it might lend some weight to it. I mention this because I have personally wrestled to understand God’s perspective on such things. I was raised to believe that marriage was forever, and that was always my plan. But when my first marriage was derailed (after 12 years) by infidelity, I found myself in a category that I never wanted to be in.
Despite this painful betrayal, I worked for over a year to keep the door open for reconciliation, even when my Christian friends pointed out that I had biblical grounds to end the marriage (Matt.19:9). When it was obvious that the relationship could not be mended, I still found myself wrestling with the notion of the “sin of divorce”, and the Lord said, “the sin occurred when you chose to build a life without me, and the divorce is simply the natural consequence of that.”
God’s design for marriage is that two people, who are equally yoked (i.e. on the same path, headed to the same destination, near the same point in the journey…) would join their lives together, and that the new entity formed by their union would be a conduit for new life to flow to and from them. His intent is to create something greater than the sum of its parts, and that on this foundation He can build families, communities, and ultimately nations.
The impact of a marriage done God’s way can be felt throughout the generations. Unfortunately, the damage and destruction done by unions that don’t live up to this standard also resonate well beyond the failed relationship itself. This potential was at the root of God’s prohibition of intermarrying with pagan tribes.
At the center of a marriage is the covenantal promise, and there is no question that such vows are sacred to God. Entering into any sort of covenantal relationship is a very serious matter, and a step that should not be undertaken without the Lord’s guidance. Unfortunately, we live in a culture where almost nothing is sacred, and relationships are frequently treated as a disposable commodity.
Given the widely held notion that the truth is relative, one only needs to conjure a “new truth” in order to void the terms of their oath. With the simple matter of letting our “yes be yes”, and our “no be no” (Matt.5:37), already in question, every relationship can hang precariously from a weak-willed vow.
I would suggest that this common flaw in our collective character is viewed as sinful by a holy God, even before we actually break our promises. It is evidence of our failure to fully surrender to Him and to His purposes.
The conundrum before us is how to respond in the face of such failures, and it was in the process of attempting to provide wise counsel to those with marital difficulties that the Lord began to change my view of such things. Given the (previously mentioned) frivolous approach towards relationships, it is easy to understand the temptation for ministers of the Lord to double down on the serious nature of divorce. Indeed, God does hate divorce (Mal.2:16), but have we ever stopped to ponder why that is?
In our years of ministering we’ve frequently encountered folks (most often women) who find themselves in the midst of a destructive relationship. In many of those instances there was sustained emotional, mental and physical abuse occurring, with children often trapped within the crossfire. Sadly, the consistent counsel that these individuals received from Christian sources (i.e. counselors, pastors, church leaders…) was that God hates divorce, and He expects you to endure whatever it takes to remain in the marriage. Implicitly, this indicates that the “Institution of Marriage” is so sacred to God that He expects individuals to suffer whatever abuse is necessary to preserve it.
As I prayed for and about these situations the Lord confronted the notion of the “Institution of Marriage”. He said that institutions are things that man creates, and that they are not sacred to Him. He showed me that the sacred element of a marriage is the people involved within it, and He posed the question, “Was man created for marriage, or was marriage created for man?” This of course mirrors Jesus’ challenge to the Pharisee’s about healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), which was His way of telling them that they were not reflecting God’s heart in their attempt to be guardians of His law. From this, I inferred that we were similarly missing the mark.
At the point that a marriage has become a conduit for manipulation, abuse, and destruction, it has completely perverted God’s design and desire. And when a spouse no longer honors their vow to love, serve and protect, the covenant promise is already shattered (regardless of their legal marital status).
God’s hatred for divorce isn’t rooted in the damage it does to the “Institution of Marriage”, it is in the destruction it does to the people involved. And if that is so, then God also “hates” the marriage that falls into this condition. The concept that He is somehow served by continuing on with such a facade is highly questionable. In fact, Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot stand (Mark 3:25).
To be sure, if two people were able to completely submit to the Lord’s authority, and to obey the things He told them, there is no relationship that He couldn’t heal. Of course, two people who were willing and able to do such a thing wouldn’t likely find themselves in such a dilemma. But if one or both choose to exercise their own will, God will not force them to stay together.
Certainly, their divorce would be sinful, but so would continuing on in this divided state. The decision to do so only perpetuates the damage, and allows it to spread like cancer throughout those involved (i.e. the children, the in-laws, friends…) and to pass down through the generations. Indeed, children should be the natural byproduct of a healthy loving relationship, which sets the stage for them to prosper. But children born into dysfunctional relationships become victims of the chaotic environment in which they are raised.
I once knew a man, who left his wife and children to live with his mistress. He continued to pay the bills, but abandoned his family physically and emotionally. Though this went on for a number of years, the man never divorced his wife. Eventually, she became ill, and their children cared for her until her death. After her passing, the man married the mistress.
While this man may have been able to console himself that he wasn’t guilty of the sin of divorce, I can assure you that God was not fooled nor impressed. If looking at a woman lustfully amounts to committing adultery in your heart (Matt.5:28), how would this evasive maneuver be accounted by God. The damage done by this man can still be clearly seen in both his children, and grandchildren, as they all consistently struggle to sustain healthy relationships.
Such is the byproduct of counseling folks that divorce is never an option. By sending a spouse back into a destructive, or even abusive situation, the marriage becomes an instrument of annihilation. If maintaining the union means that neither the spouses nor their children ever become who they were created to be, God is neither served nor glorified. Though we know that what God has joined together no man should separate (Matt.19:6), what happens when we join ourselves together (as I did in my first marriage) without His input or guidance?
Part of God’s redemptive nature is that He will allow diseased things to be destroyed so that they can be replaced with new life. He cuts off unhealthy branches (John 15:2), he curses unfruitful trees (Matt.21:19), and when we build our house on the wrong foundation, He allows storms to wash it away (Matt.7:26-27). He goes so far as to say that if our eye causes us to sin, we would be better off to gouge it out than to continue on in our sinful state (Matt.5:29).
This is significant, because it was God Himself that gave us two eyes, both as a gift and a provision, yet He’s saying that if this gift becomes perverted, it is better that we lose it. I would suggest that this could apply to the gift of marriage as well.
I am not in any way trying to diminish the seriousness of divorce, or the sacred nature of marriage vows. But I am challenging the presumption that it is always God’s will to preserve a marriage, regardless of what it might cost or where it might lead.
Most certainly God hates divorce, but He also hates haughty eyes, a lying tongue, false witnesses, and people who stir up conflict within a community (Prov.6:16-19). To single out divorce, and make it the unforgivable sin is a distortion of His heart.
As with all things, we need to learn how to be led by the Spirit of God in these matters, and to not trot out the same old rote religious responses we grew up with. Only He knows the truth of men’s hearts (Jer.17:9), only He has the words of life (John 6:68), and only He knows the end from the beginning (Isa.46:10). We need to be saying what He is saying, and not be saying what He is not saying (John 5:19-20).
Bjcorbin's Blog 
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 »