Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘church’

Institution – Industry – Idolatry

Posted in Commentaries, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 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).”

Read Full Post »

The Challenge Before Us

Posted in Commentaries, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 13, 2023| Leave a Comment »

I should preface this essay with the disclaimer that I have spent the majority of my life attending a church building on a weekly basis.  In fact, my wife and I currently attend church services when we’re able, and would happily claim the folks there as part of our extended family.  For some, that might be considered an indictment against our judgement, for others it may lend some credence to what I want to share. 

In the last few decades I’ve had a spectrum of church experiences.  After beginning in the Liturgical world (i.e. Catholic, Episcopal), I traveled in Evangelical circles (i.e. Baptist), and eventually landed in the Pentecostal realm (e.g. Assemblies of God, various Non-Denominational…).  I can honestly say that I have grown within all of those spheres, though I would attribute that more to God’s faithfulness than as an advocation of any of those particular systems.

As a child, I had a sense that most God-fearing folks went to some sort of church, and I just assumed that the blueprint for these church systems must come from the bible.  But as the years passed, I’ve come to realize that isn’t the case.  Though the various elements can be tied to something within the scripture, the recipe for what we’ve cooked up isn’t really there.

Along the way, I’ve discovered three very distinct camps of “Believers”.  There are those who staunchly hold to, and defend the traditional church model as “the model”; those who largely believe in the traditional church dogma, but who also believe that the old model needs to be updated (e.g. Five-Fold Ministry, House Church…); and finally, there are those who see the institutional church as oppressive, abusive, corrupt… advocating a complete abandonment of that mode.  For the purposes of this writing, I will refer to these clans as. “Traditionalists”, “New Wineskin Advocates”, and the “De-churched”.

More disclaimers.  I will speak of these groups generally, and as with all generalities, that means there are most certainly exceptions, which by definition are exceptional.  I would also like to preface my criticisms of these particular paradigms with the understanding that they are not intended to be an attack on the people within these systems.  For the most part, this is simply how we’ve been taught to do ministry.

I also understand that when you’ve experienced, or even just witnessed the damage that has been done through these various religious patterns it is tempting to villainize anyone associated with those programs, but that would be equally unfair and hurtful. 

I believe that the stereotype of the greedy, power hungry, glory seeking minister is extremely overstated and overused.  I sense that most folks get into ministry with pure motivations, and that the vast majority serve in a sincere effort to fulfill God’s calling on their lives. 

This field is only lucrative to a select few, while the vast majority toil in obscurity, often overworked and unappreciated.  The burden placed on a typical pastor is unreasonable at best, and is frequently damaging to them and their families.  My issues are not with these folks, but with the blueprint that we’ve used to do “church”.

Traditionist’s tend to revere the institution of the church as being sacred, seeing it as an integral and essential element of their faith walk.  While they might acknowledge that the church isn’t a building, their connection to God is most tangibly experienced there.  Of course, these ideas aren’t organically arrived at, they are consistently reinforced by the institution itself.  On a purely practical level, this messaging is crucial to the entity’s survival. 

Even churches which openly acknowledge the indwelling the Holy Spirit tend to promote the concept of the church building being the “House of God”, which infers that this is where you need to go if you hope to interact with Him.  In such settings, the corporate worship experience is generally valued above personal interactions with the Lord.

Old testament images, such as temple worship, and the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies on behalf of the people encourage congregations to view their clergy as a sort of broker between themselves and God.  While the gap between “clergy”, and “laity” creates the sense of exclusive membership in some sort of elite branch of the body, much like Special Forces units compare to the regular infantry. 

The Apostle Paul spoke of a body where every member provides something essential for the greater whole, but the traditional church model reduces the vast majority of congregants into students (who never graduate), servants (who are simply gears within the larger machine), or perhaps worst of all, into spectators (who are expected to crowd-fund the vision of their leadership).

Jesus came to give us a better covenant (Heb.7:22, 8:6, 12:24).  When He died on the cross, the veil was torn (Matt.27:52, Mark 15:38), signifying that followers could now boldly come before the throne of grace (Heb.4:16).  No more need for bloody sacrifices.  No more need for a High Priest to do their bidding.  Christ was the perfect sacrifice, and through Him we became a part of the royal priesthood (1 Pet.2:9).

Jesus explained, that it would be better that He go to the Father, so that the Spirit would come (John 16:7), and He assured them that His sheep would know His voice, so they could follow Him (John 10:27).  All of this was meant to revolutionize the way we worshipped (John 4:23), but over time followers simply reverted back to the familiar temple-based system, where a staff of intermediaries could once again represent and lead them.  When the temple was destroyed, the system morphed into the Synagogue – Rabbi model, which maintained a similar emphasis on buildings and teachers.

Over time, numerous liturgies, rituals, and sacraments were developed with the idea that they might be representative of our relationship with the Lord, but in many cases, they have become a substitute for a genuine, personal, connection with the Living God.  This is the anti-thesis of what we should be aiming for, but the unfortunate truth is that this twisted dynamic is actually good for the “church” system.

None of this would matter much if people were sincerely connecting with the Lord, manifesting His light and life to those around them, and actually being transformed into His image, but for the most part, this industry we call church is what we’re spending our time and resources on instead. 

The greatest indictment against this traditional church model is that it has utterly failed to produce any of the hallmarks described in scripture.  “Christians” are not known by their great love for one another (John 13;35), instead they are famously divided (e.g. more than 25,000 denominations).  They are not known for their “Christlike” character (Rom.8:29), nor are these institutions consistently producing devoted disciples (Matt.28:19).  Even with thousands of years of church history, His pure and spotless Bride has never emerged from this system (Eph.5:27). 

D.L. Moody offered, “Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn’t really matter”.  I would suggest that the institutional church has gotten very good at a lot of things that may not matter much to the Lord.

Though some fine work has been, and is being done in Jesus name (e.g. food banks, clothing banks, Christmas gifts for underprivileged kids, drug rehabilitation…), the transforming love of God is only trickling through.  It is like a charitable organization that spends 90% of its resources on sustaining the corporate structure, while only pennies on the dollar actually reach the intended beneficiaries (e.g. the lost).  The impact of these institutions is not only declining within our culture, it is declining within our homes, as our children are abandoning this system in droves.

Those who have come to recognize these shortcomings within the traditional church model frequently split into one of the other two groups I previously mentioned.  The New Wineskin Advocates tend to believe that changes in leadership structure (e.g. Five-Fold Ministry), and/or format (e.g. House Church, Small Group…) would be sufficient to move the institutional church in a new, and more fruitful direction, while the De-churched largely view the institutionalization of the church as the root problem.  For them, this system is too broke and/or corrupt to fix.

My motivation in writing this piece is not to promote any one of these groups over the other, but to lay out the challenge that each of them face. There are valid points to be made for and against each perspective, but regardless of what camp one ascribes to, there is much work to be done.

There is no doubt that God has used, and continues to use the traditional church model.  Flawed vessels are all that He has to work with, and to the degree it is about Him, He works through it.  In many ways this system works fairly well for young believers, as it provides a substantial amount of structure, and basic teaching.  But on the other end of the spectrum, it struggles to allow disciples to come to full maturity. 

A comparable paradigm would be adult children, who still live in their parent’s basement.  By appearance, they are fully functional adults, but in truth they will never actually stand on their own two feet (i.e. put a roof over their head, put food on their own table, pay their own utility bills, raise their own children…) until they absolutely have to.  Even if they’re paying rent to their parents, they are still very much dependents, who won’t find out what they’re capable of until they build a life of their own.  It was never God’s design that children should remain wards of their parents (Gen.2:24).

Likewise, the Hebrew writer explains that the Levitical priesthood was never going to be sufficient to bring the church to its fullness (Heb.7:11-12), which created the need for One who was both King and Priest.  Again, this was intended to be a radical shift in the way that the body of Christ functioned, and he ultimately chastens these particular followers for their lack of growth in the walk of faith (Heb.5:12-13).  Yet, as constructed, the traditional church system re-creates this same Levitical pattern.  As long as there is a professional staff to do the work of ministry, it is unlikely that the royal priesthood will ever truly emerge (Heb.7).

Finally, the church as an institution is a troublesome notion.  A body is formed by the Creator, and it is a living thing.  Institutions are constructed by man, and the only life within them comes from those who inhabit them.  No matter how diligent the construction, such entities are highly susceptible to corruption, and the long sad history of institutional religion is infested with tragic examples of this.  There is also a built-in conflict of interest, as helping folks to go directly to the Lord becomes a threat to the solvency of the structure.

Perhaps the greatest danger is that folks mistake their affiliation with the institution for genuine communion with the One who came to set them free.  In the midst of such deception, there are bold declarations of liberation, but genuine freedom is never truly experienced.

Ultimately, the evidence that a branch is connected to the vine is the fruit that naturally springs forth from it.  If the traditional church model isn’t producing followers who think, look and act like Jesus Christ (2 Corth.3:18), one needs to question what vine it has grafted itself to (John 15:5).

New Wineskin Advocates recognize the need for a change, and have varying ideas about what this new form or format might look like.  Many believe that getting away from buildings, and corporate structures would create a closer knit, more intimate community.  Others believe that Apostolic leadership, and Prophetic insight are what’s missing from the current church recipe. 

To be sure, there is some amount of scriptural basis for these (and other) potential approaches, but it is questionable whether any of these changes will actually transform “the church”.  Without a genuine change of heart, we risk carrying the damage and dysfunction of our current system into the new format. 

Many of those who’ve already ventured into the House Church movement have found themselves having the same sorts of issues (albeit on a smaller, more intimate scale) they were having in church buildings, and in ministries attempting to implement the Five-Fold Ministry approach, the clergy / laity divide is actually growing.

Watching these first small steps toward a “new wineskin” might lend credence to the De-churched belief that this system is broken beyond repair.  But if that is true, where does the Body of Christ go from here.  Our mission is not to simply diagnose what’s wrong with the church.  It is to be the active, visible, breathing representation of Jesus Christ on the earth.  If one concludes that the established system is a counterfeit, it becomes incumbent upon them to go on and manifest something legitimate in its place.

In far too many instances, the De-churched gather around their damaging church experiences, congratulating each other for escaping “the system”, and disparaging anyone who remains within it.  None of that gets us any closer to our destiny, and staying there for any amount of time cultivates a root of bitterness.

After spending a couple thousand words in breaking all this down, I would like to suggest that it doesn’t really matter which of these camps you might find yourself in.  Ultimately, the challenge is the same.  God does not view us as we view each other, He is looking directly into our hearts (1Sam.16:7).  I would further submit that if our hearts were in the right condition, the format of our worship wouldn’t inhibit us from manifesting a legitimate representation of Christ (Rom.8:28).

The gospels (Mathew & Luke) record an intriguing scene from the ministry of John the Baptist.  “When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.  And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.  The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt.3:7-10)’.”

It’s interesting, and maybe a bit concerning that no one ever seems to see themselves in the Pharisees, and Sadducees.  Could it be a similar kind of religious pride that blinds us to the deception in our own hearts?  After all, these men had devoted their lives to ministerial pursuits, and they were confident in their knowledge, lineage, giftings, and callings.  They had credentials, and position, and a booming religious system behind them.  And how is that any different than the religious leaders of today.

Then, along comes a wild-eyed street preacher, questioning their legitimacy, and demanding that they produce the fruit of their alleged repentance.  Who was he to make such an accusation, or to deliver such a mandate?    Of course, had there been heathy fruit to present, it would have been a simple matter to discredit this outsider, but despite the thriving temple industry, the cupboard was woefully bare.

We too, can point to our beautiful facilities, our state-of-the-art sound systems, our arena sized worship events, and our well attended conferences, as evidence of “success” in ministry.  But those things are a better representation of the culture than of Christ.  Once again, I hear the Spirit of Lord demanding that we present the fruit of our supposed repentance.  That is the challenge laying before all who would call themselves by His name.  Indeed, the ax is already at the root, and without genuine fruit, our labor will continue to be in vain.

Read Full Post »

The Most Pressing Issue Facing the Church

Posted in Commentaries, Word Pictures, tagged , , , , , , on November 16, 2023| Leave a Comment »

As the various ministry leaders filed into the room, they smiled warily at one another.  Exchanging tepid pleasantries as they moved to their assigned seats at the head table.  This session was intended to create a panel discussion on “The Most Pressing Issue Facing the Church”, and the audience seemed enthusiastic to hear from this esteemed panel.  Some of the speakers were better known than others, but all had come with something to say.

One by one, they spoke out their concerns.  One spoke of the rampant sexual sin, that had engulfed so many in leadership; calling for the corporate repentance of all believers.  Another pointed to a failure to properly discern “The Body or Ecclesia”, pleading for greater unity among the brethren.  Still another reasoned it was the lack of a functioning “Five-Fold Ministry” structure, chiding the attendees to step under the umbrella of Apostolic leadership.  Each presenter was met with a chorus of amens, and generally polite applause, until one particularly boisterous speaker set the spectators aflame with his diatribe on the loss of the churches influence within western society, and his “7 Cultural Mountains” strategy to bring her back to her former glory.  The people rose to their feet as this man made his way around the room, laying his hands on them, and “imparting a spirit of boldness!”

Conference organizers considered ending the session on this high note, but there was still one more panelist who hadn’t spoken, so despite their better instincts, they asked that folks move back to their seats and give him their attention.  The energy of the room dropped significantly, as this final speaker made his way to the podium.  Some looked through their program, searching for the credential that qualified him to be included amongst this illustrious group.  He spoke in a relatively low voice, and in measured tones, but he seemed to make eye contact with just about everyone in the room.  He did not introduce himself, or give his resume, as the other speakers had.  He simply began to speak.

“The most pressing issue facing the church of Jesus Christ is that we do not look anything like Him.  We do not think like Him, we do not speak like Him, we do not share His value system, and we do not reflect His character.  We are called to be the physical manifestation of His Body on the earth.  A living, breathing representation of who He is, so that He might draw men unto Himself through us.  But instead, we have created an industry called, “The Church”, and we’ve slapped His name on our letterheads, and buildings, much like a corporate sponsor does on a stadium. 

He said that people would know us by the way we love each other, but that is not how they know us.  If we’re honest, we ourselves struggle to gather in the same room without all manner of envy and strife.  Who should accept the invitation to join in such dysfunction.

The Apostle Paul warned that we could gain all knowledge, and know all prophecy, and give to the poor, but if we failed to love, as He loves, we would have nothing.  We are rich in the things of the world.  We have beautiful facilities, and state of the art sound systems, and church vans, and coffee bars…   But we are impoverished in the currency of the Kingdom. 

I would suggest to you that it is not “boldness” that we lack, for we have boldly gone our own way.  It is humility that we ought to pray for, because without the mind of Christ, or the Father’s heart, we cannot be trusted with the power of His Spirit.”

The room was completely quiet, and everyone sat still, as the man shuffled back to his seat.  After an uncomfortable pause, it was announced that the session was over, and lunch was served.  Both the speakers and the audience rose to their feet, and intently moved toward the door.  No one acknowledged the final speaker, or addressed the words he’d said. 

But as the conference ended, the singular point of agreement amongst the attendees was that this man should not be invited to next year’s gathering.

Read Full Post »

Building – Body – Bride

Posted in Commentaries, tagged , , , on September 30, 2019| 2 Comments »

Like a lot of people my age, I can say that I was raised in church. The Catholic Church to be exact.  And in those days my understanding of “the church” was a building where good, God-fearing folk gathered on Sundays, and other specified, “Holy Days of Obligation”.  As a child, I was told that it was “God’s House”, and so I just assumed it was where He lived, which is why we always needed to dress up to go there, and why my mom always insisted that we whisper, even when the service was over.  I did find that last part a little confusing, because I was pretty sure He could still hear us.  Even at a young age, I also recognized that our “church” was part of a larger institution known as the “Catholic Church”, thus my concept of church was largely steeped in the idea of buildings and institutions.

 

In that era, the “Body of Christ” was both the image on our crucifix, and the communion wafer that was such a prominent part of our Sunday tradition. One represented the suffering Jesus endured for us, while the other represented our way of staying connected to Him.  Indeed, participation in the sacraments was the key to remaining in good standing with God.  We had infant baptism to cover original sin, confession to cover our ongoing penchant for sin, and we had the Eucharist to cover our communion with God.  As near as I could tell, if I stuck with the program, God would remain relatively pleased with me, and my spot in heaven would be fairly secure.  For a long time, that seemed like enough.

 

But by the time I reached the doorstep of adulthood, both the internal and external forces at work on me had managed to reshape my reality. Though I can’t say that I ever stopped believing that there was a God, I had developed no real sense of connection to Him, and my ongoing participation in the sacraments didn’t seem to be making much of a difference.  Indeed, my struggles seemed very real, and my religious practice felt largely ceremonial.  So at 19 years old, as I left home to join the Navy, I unwittingly walked away from the tradition that had been such a big part of my upbringing.  Not because I was hurt, or angry, or even frustrated; if anything, I was empty.  I just left it behind like some old shirt hanging in my bedroom closet because it didn’t really fit anymore.

 

I offer this little testimony as an example of how devout religious upbringing/practice doesn’t necessarily translate into a genuine relationship with God. Of course, part of the problem was that I never really understood that was the goal.  Whether it is conscious or unconscious, institutions have the tendency to both preserve and perpetuate themselves, which keeps them at the forefront of your experience.  Even if I had known the importance of relationship, it would have simply driven me back toward the institution.  After all, I was taught that I needed them to tell me what the scripture said/meant, and to administer the sacraments, which could restore and maintain my relationship to God.  Some might read this as an indictment of the Catholic Church, but I would maintain that this esthetic exists throughout all organized religion.  Even ministers who’ll say things like, “it isn’t what happens inside the four walls of the church”, and/or “the church isn’t a building, it’s the people”, have a vested interest in the long term health of their organization.  That doesn’t necessarily make them evil or greedy, it’s just the practical reality of overseeing such an entity.

 

I did go on to build a life without much more than a passive reverence toward the idea of God, and a quiet admiration for people of faith. For a while, that seemed to be working out, as I attained some level of success in worldly terms.  But when the inevitable storms came, my good looking life collapsed into a pile of rubble.  That’s when I finally cried out to God in a way that I never had, and sought to know Him in a way I never did before.  I needed Him to be as real as my pain, and my fear, and my weakness.  It was a journey, and it didn’t change overnight, but I steadily felt drawn into something that was far more profound and genuine than anything I’d experienced before.  Indeed, I would testify that He made Himself real to me, and that radically changed everything.

 

In my desire to know Him more, I decided to take on the daunting task of reading the scripture for myself, and again, I felt as though God met me there. Though many of the individual passages were familiar, I emerged with a very different sense of who God was and what He wanted for me.  Instead of the thundering judge, demanding payment for sin, I saw the loving Father who yearned to be a part of His children’s lives.  Repeatedly, I saw Him create situations whereby He might connect with His creation, and repeatedly, I saw mankind thwart those arrangements.  With the perfect sacrifice of His Son, He finally accomplished what He’d been after all along, as His Spirit could now come and dwell within the hearts of His people.  No more bloody sacrifices, no more annual visits from the High Priest, no more middle men.  Without a doubt, this would be the “better covenant” of which the scriptures spoke.

 

Yet, the same fallen nature which led to the forfeiture of Eden, and to the request that God not speak directly to the His people (from the mountain), and to the refusal to enter the Promised Land, and to the clamor for an earthly king (like everyone else had), continues to plague us to this very day.  Despite the fact that the veil was torn, affording every believer direct access to their Father, we cling to our time honored traditions, expecting someone else to go in our stead.  Despite the promise of His most Holy Spirit coming to dwell within us, we continue to search through the ruins of a torn down temple (as if that is the only way we might know Him) as we cry out for Him to send us something more (as if what He’s already given us is insufficient for the task at hand).

 

The word so often interpreted as church within the scripture actually refers to a people who have been called out by God. It was never meant to rest upon a building or an institution.  It points us to a living, breathing organism, not an inanimate, man-made object or system.  With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, this body would now have the very real potential (and calling) to become the manifestation of Christ upon the earth.  But to become partakers of that divine nature, one must first be willing to allow the old nature to be crucified, and for most, that is too high a price to pay.  The Apostle Paul repeatedly spoke of the need to participate in Christ’s death, so that we might also participate in His resurrection, while Jesus himself told us to take up our cross and follow Him.  Without that, there is little chance of substantive transformation, and we are left with little more than rote religious practices.

 

While the scripture tells us that there is a form of religion that God ultimately views as pure, we must also remember that Jesus’ strongest rebukes were reserved for the religious elite of His day. He manifested amazing grace for sinners, but great ire towards those who purportedly knew the Torah best, and controlled the temple system His Father had commissioned.  While the Pharisees seemed impressed with their own sense of holiness, Jesus characterized them as a “brood of vipers”.  Indeed, practices that flow out of a vital relationship with God are vastly different from those rooted in trying to appease a God we don’t really know, much less trust.

 

Religion has a tendency to stir spiritual activity, and there is a demonic component that I will simply refer to as the “spirit of religion”. At its heart it is an Anti-Christ spirit that seeks to substitute just about anything for a genuine connection to the Savior.  Jesus taught us that those who abide in the vine (i.e. remain directly connected to Him) will produce fruit.  Without that connection, “the church” becomes indistinguishable from the world, and “Christianity” becomes just another murky philosophy.  It cannot hope to point people to a Jesus that it doesn’t even know itself.  The spirit of religion is fine with folks doing their daily devotions, or going to service three times a week, or partaking of the sacraments, or memorizing scripture verses, or listening to Christian music, or flowing in their giftedness, or any other religious practice, as long as it never really results in a meaningful relationship with the person of Christ.  When this spirit attaches itself to our aforementioned nature, men tend to build lifeless monuments to their own sense of righteousness, and feel good about their eternity.

 

In 2017, the Barna Research group published an article about a growing population of believers who, “Love Jesus, but Not the Church”. It characterized this group as being largely comprised of people who take their faith quite seriously, and who have a surprisingly orthodox belief system.  It cites their distinctive as being their negative views towards organized/institutional religion, and it refers to them as “dechurched”.  In my experience, this term is operative, as these are generally folks who’ve spent years within the institutional structures of Christianity, with the vast majority of them coming from positions of leadership.  They are not only disillusioned by the abuse and corruption they’ve witnessed within the system, they are convinced that the current blueprint (i.e. format/structure) followed by most denominations will never allow the people to reach spiritual maturity.  Because of this, they’ve parted ways with the traditional model for doing “church”.

 

For those who have experienced (and/or witnessed) serious damage done within the church system, the temptation to firebomb institutional religion is somewhat understandable, but the Lord is quick to point out that there are people He loves within those buildings and organizations. He doesn’t demand that they get their doctrine and theology straight before He comes, He meets them right where they’re at.  Those of us who were the beneficiaries of such grace, must also extend it to those who are still finding their way.  In His sovereignty, God uses deeply flawed vessels and vehicles to accomplish His will – ultimately those are the only kind He has to work with.

 

The struggle for the “Dechurched” is finding an expression that more accurately reflects the New Covenant model, and allows people to step into the fullness of who and what God’s called them to be. Another challenge is not falling into the trap of misidentifying the system/institution as the enemy.  To be sure, there are inherent issues with any man-made structure or system, but if we battle not against flesh and blood, then it cannot become the focal point of the fight.  As many who’ve left the pews behind have already discovered, simply changing the venue and format doesn’t fix the problem.  Human nature, and the spirit of religion are just as comfortable in our living rooms as they are in our sanctuaries.

 

Sitting around and sharing stories about our bad church experiences will only perpetuate bitterness. It is not enough to simply leave behind a flawed system, it now becomes essential to step into something deeper and more authentic.  If all we do is free up our Sunday mornings, we are in real danger of becoming even less useful to God.  Any hope for a new and fruitful season must begin with an honest examination of our connection to the vine, but we also need to understand what kind of fruit to look for.  The fruit of genuine repentance is transformation.  Until people know us by the way we love each other, there is little chance that we will reach beyond our own small circle.  If the “Dechurched” simply fixate on the shortcomings of the institutional church, they will likely become nothing more than the new anti-institution denomination.  The Lord deserves better.  He deserves a glorious Bride, worth returning for.

Read Full Post »

The Protestant Deformation

Posted in Commentaries, Opinions, tagged , , , , , , , , , on September 10, 2015| 1 Comment »

Though Martin Luther is commonly credited with leading the “Protestant Reformation”, men like John Wycliffe (1331-1384), and Jan Hus (1369-1415), were mounting serious and meaningful challenges to the authority and practices of the Catholic church over 100 years before Luther’s Ninety-Five Thesis was nailed to the church door.  These men, and other reformers like them, could not find a biblical justification for what they saw “the church” doing, and they literally risked their lives and livelihoods to question it.  At the heart of their protests was the way “the church” had inserted itself as the middle-man (or broker) between God and His people; and the rampant corruption that resulted from it.  In that era, “Christians” had to rely on “the church” to teach them what the scripture said, to forgive their sins, and to administer the sacraments, which were ostensibly their connection to God, and ultimately to salvation.  A failure to live up to the standards of “the church” could get you cut off from the sacraments, which in that context amounted to being cut off from God.

 

As a person who was raised in a devoutly Catholic family, this is similar to the understanding of God I grew up with.  He was too high, and too holy, to be approached by people like me; and so we prayed to the saints, and we prayed to Mary, and we relied on the priests, and the bishops, and the Pope to tell us what God really wanted from us.  He was so holy that we had to whisper in the sanctuary, even when there wasn’t a service going on.  In those days, I believed that the church building was God’s house, and that this was where I needed to go to be with Him.  Of course, the idea of being with Him was scary, because, as I was frequently reminded, He would one day judge me and decide whether I was worthy of heaven.  No doubt, fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but I don’t think that this is what God had in mind.  I emerged from this upbringing with an awe of God, and gratitude for the sacrifice that Jesus made for me, but with no real connection to either of them, and no understanding of the “Holy Ghost”.  From my perspective, God was a world away (i.e. in heaven), Jesus had died 2000 years ago, and here I was, on my own.

 

When I left home, I left “the church” behind; not out of hurt, or anger, or some great theological issue, but rather because it seemed irrelevant to my life.  Though I always tried to be a “good” and moral person, I simply adapted to my surroundings, and the culture; and for a lot of years that seemed to be OK.  But, eventually, I became aware of a nagging emptiness within me, and as I sought to find its origin, I discovered that God was what was missing from my life.  This wasn’t happy news for me, because I assumed that it meant going back to church, and I hadn’t really missed that part.  But since church was all that I knew, that’s what I did.  Though my first attempt was a Catholic church, a “protestant” friend eventually invited me to their church, and I soon found myself moving in a different direction.  Bible studies began to challenge what I thought I knew, and when I finally read the Bible for myself, I emerged with a totally different picture of God, what He wanted, and what it meant to be His son.  I realized that He wanted to have a personal relationship with me, and though I wasn’t really sure how to go about that, I was committed to the pursuit of it.  Though it took some time, I gradually began to experience a tangible awareness of His presence, and to discern His voice.  At times, I encountered His Holy Spirit in powerful ways, and I was forever transformed in those moments.  The revelation that His Spirit lived inside of me brought God out of heaven, and Jesus out of history, and placed them in the center of my every day.  It changed my life in every way, and has become my sole source of hope.

 

I guess that this testimony would seem to support the idea that the “Protestant” flavor of Christianity is somehow superior to the “Catholic’ brand, but after twenty years of travelling within these circles, the two have begun to look incredibly similar.  Though I am grateful to my Evangelical friends, and their urging to come kneel at the altar; and to my Baptist friends, and their encouragement to read the Bible; and for my Charismatic brothers and sisters, and their love of all things spiritual.  And while I did feel the need to get baptized again; and while I have been known to speak in tongues; and while I do continue to find my way to a church pew on most Sundays, none of it has, or ever will, save my soul.  All of it has only been worthwhile to the degree that it helped me to find Jesus Christ, and to become genuinely connected to Him, and to fulfill His purposes for my life.  Though God used (and uses) these things (i.e. both my Catholic upbringing & my experiences within “Protestant” circles), it was Him who drew me to Himself, it was Him who spoke to my heart, it was Him who gave me (and gives me) new life.  Ultimately, this entire journey has been (and is) a transaction between Him and me.  He is the Vine and I am a branch; I am sustained by Him.

 

It seems to me that throughout human history God has tried to orchestrate a direct connection with His children, and that men have consistently resisted that effort.  It began in the garden, where all He wanted was to walk with them in the cool of the day; but Adam and Eve chose a different path.  In Moses’ day, He spoke to the people from the mountain; but it frightened them, and they asked Him to stop.  Later, when the people cried out for a king, He lamented, “I wanted to be their King”.  And when He sent them prophets to speak for Him, they ignored and/or killed them.  But finally, through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, He was able to send His Spirit to dwell within the hearts of those who are truly His.  This was (and is) the consummation of God’s desire to have a genuine and intimate relationship with His people.  No more need for animal sacrifices, no more need to go to the temple to experience His presence, no more need to find the prophet to hear what God is saying.  The veil was torn, and even a “wretch like me” was (and is) now free to come directly to the throne of grace.  So where does that leave “the church”?

 

The church that Jesus spoke of wasn’t an institution, nor was it meant to be contained in a building.  He spoke of a body of believers, living in response to Him, through His Spirit.  He envisioned a connection that was so intimate that it would be like that of a groom and his bride.  A people so devoted to Him, and to each other, that the world couldn’t help but see a compelling picture of His love for them.  But what we have arrived at (in this present age) is much more rooted in religious tradition, and pragmatism, than in anything scriptural.  The “church” has become little more than the place where we go to practice our particular brand of religion.  And while the exercising of one’s religious convictions is not necessarily a bad or evil thing, there is a spirit that tends to lurk about such activity, continuously trying to twist it’s meaning and context.  I would call this a religious spirit, or the spirit of religion, and it is the same spirit that utterly convinced Caiaphas that he was protecting Israel by demanding Jesus’ crucifixion, and Paul that he was doing God’s work by killing Jesus’ followers.  If we are not discerning, we too can convince ourselves that all our religious activity is accomplishing something that it is not.  Jesus warned His followers of this in the gospels (Matt 7:23 – Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven…)

 

In fact, nothing seemed to stir Jesus’ ire like a religious spirit, with many of His strongest rebukes pointed at the religious leaders of His day.  These men perceived themselves to be God’s agents, and yet Jesus said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.  You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to (Matt 23:13).”  Obviously, Jesus’ anger was rooted in the fact that these men were standing in the way of people coming directly to Him, and there can be no doubt that He feels the same way today.  At its core, the spirit of religion is an anti-Christ spirit, which seeks to re-erect the veil by placing itself between Christ and His people.  It exalts its symbols, and its doctrine, and its rituals, and its officials, thereby stealing the focus away from the One who is the source of life.  The great reformers of the past came against this spirit in what we would now consider the Catholic church, and I would suggest, that the reformers of today need to do the same for those churches which would be considered “Protestant” in heritage.

 

Since Luther’s time, the reformed church has gradually restored much of the hierarchy, ritual, and idolatry it purportedly intended to leave behind.  The “Christian” culture in America is now littered with superstar personalities, who can fill arenas, and demand grand compensation for their ministry.  We now have ministers who carry special titles (e.g. Bishop, Archbishop, Apostle, Prophet..), and are led to believe that they make up some privileged class within the Body of Christ.  In many instances, people exalt these leaders, laying money at their feet, and standing in line so that they can be touched by them.  An internet search can locate videos of such ministers literally being crowned, or essentially knighted with a sword.  Many such ministries offer special blessings (i.e. indulgences) for those who give a requisite amount.  Even in places without that kind of hysteria, people are taught that the church, or their Pastor, is their spiritual covering, and that they will be unprotected if they come out from under their authority.  Over and over again, in a thousand different ways, the message becomes that we need what they have to offer in order to reach our God ordained destiny, and that is directly counter to the good news of the gospel.

 

I am not saying that there are no sincere ministers anymore, or that there aren’t congregations that are doing good work within their communities.  Undoubtedly, both still exist.  I’m not saying that anyone who holds a special title is corrupt or greedy.  I personally know many gifted ministers who can legitimately claim such a title.  But I am saying that this model that we have adopted for “church” is not producing the kind of fruit Jesus died to provide.  Collectively, we are not being the salt and light; we are not known by the way we love each other, we are not being transformed into the image of Christ, and we don’t seem to be having much of an effect on the gates of hell.  Our children are largely emerging from their church upbringings without a genuine connection to God, and are leaving the faith in droves.  As I read the scripture, I find that God is being exactly who He said He would be, and that the enemy of our souls is acting exactly like God said he would, and that the world (i.e. mankind) is being exactly like He said it would be, and that creation is responding just like He said it would.  The one character that I read about in the Bible, that I don’t see, is the Bride of Christ, who Jesus comes back for.  At this point in my journey, I would guess that our current religious practice isn’t going to get us there.  Ultimately, it is Christ in us that is the hope of glory.  Until the life of Christ within us becomes our guide, we are bound to wander aimlessly.  Unless the Lord builds the house, we will continue to labor in vain.

Read Full Post »