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).”
Bjcorbin's Blog 
Good Guys and Bad Guys
Posted in Commentaries, tagged accountability, allegations, bad, cancel culture, categorization, culture, darkness, demonic attack, erase, evil, expunged, fall, forgiveness, good, human nature, human spirit, humanist, idols, ministry of reconciliation, outliers, rationalization, redeem, redemption, repercussions, scandals, sinful, total depravity, utopian, victims on July 9, 2025| 1 Comment »
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).
Rate this:
Read Full Post »