(Written many years ago)
One of the most effective tools of our enemy is the subtle redefinition of terms, especially those with biblical significance. Within this pattern we see a word from scripture infused into our cultural vernacular, where it can take on all sorts of new connotations (i.e. it is secularized). As such a term gains new relevance, there is often a renewed emphasis on its use within the church; but many times the word is not restored to its original context. An example of such a term is, “vision”.
Like many words, “vision” can have different meanings based upon its context. It can simply mean how well we see (i.e. our visual acuity); or it can refer to a dreamlike state where images permeate our conscious mind; or it can refer to our long term goals and the strategies we have for achieving them. I believe that this final context is the most popular, and that its attractiveness can largely be traced to the business world.
It is our human tendency to make successful people and/or entities into icons; and increasingly entrepreneurs have reached celebrity status within our society. They are often hailed as visionaries based solely on their perceived success, and often in spite of their character. These czars of popular culture rarely resist the urge to share their “vision” and often find a crowd willing to fall in line behind them.
Unfortunately the church is amongst the leaders in this trend; as church growth experts study the successes of corporate entities in hopes of replicating their success within the church. Though on a purely practical level this would seem to be a reasonable strategy, spiritually it is fraught with pitfalls.
While many might rationalize that there is nothing wrong with the church employing successful methodologies from the world; such a belief ignores that at the foundation of every methodology is a philosophy or ideology; and that embracing the method in the natural generally equates to embracing the corresponding philosophy in the spiritual (i.e. in essence we put our faith in it).
The other problem is the aim of these strategies. Corporate entities in the world are looking to attract consumers, to grow their businesses and to appeal to the masses. Churches who’ve successfully deployed such methods have often achieved those same ends; producing consumers instead of disciples.
In the corporate world, the leaders (or visionaries) come together and cast the vision for the organization. This is the exercise of visualizing where they want to go, what they want to achieve and then developing a strategy for getting there. Once again this seems to be a very sensible approach for any corporate entity, including the church; but it ignores many principles of scripture.
God clearly states that our ways are not His ways; that the wisdom of men is foolishness to Him and He warns us not to be taken captive through “hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ”. He tells us not to be focused on what is seen (i.e. in the natural), but to be focused on what is unseen (i.e. the spiritual). He tells us that not only is our struggle in the spiritual realm, but also that our tools, weapons and authority are in that sphere as well. Sadly, when the church chooses to study and deploy worldly strategies to gain influence in the natural realm, we unwittingly lay down our weapons and forfeit our authority in the spiritual realm.
The scripture I’ve most often heard quoted in regard to the word “vision” is from Proverbs 29 (KJV), where it says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish”. I’ve heard many leaders use this scripture in the context of talking about long term goals and strategies, but that doesn’t seem to be an appropriate application. The Hebrew word translated as “vision” in the King James actually speaks of a revelation from God; and other translations actually use the word “revelation”.
If our long term goals and strategies were established through revelation from God, it could be argued that these meanings are synonymous; but in terms of teaching the scripture, there is a large difference between the idea that people perish because they don’t have long term goals and strategies, and that people perish because they don’t get revelation from God. The Lord has not entrusted the leadership and guidance of His children to anyone apart from Himself and thus the vision for our lives and His church must come directly from Him.
Just as the term vision has taken on a new context, so has the term “visionary”; whereas there was once a very spiritual connotation to the term, it now seems that anyone who has an active imagination or the ability to “visualize” their ideas can be viewed as a “visionary”. The problem with such visionaries is that they can tap into any number of sources for their vision.
Visions that are not birthed from the Spirit of God, but are instead derived from our minds, emotions, observations, experiences, imaginations… could more accurately be called goals, plans, wishes, dreams or fantasies. Surprisingly, Proverbs 28 (NIV) addresses the idea of fantasies when it says, “one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty”. In light of these two scriptures (i.e. Prov. 28 & 29), it would seem vital that we discern the origin of our “vision”; because apart from divine inspiration, a visionary will inevitably build a monument to themselves.
It is very much within our nature to want detailed information about the future; as such detailed plans for the future can seem very appealing. But God’s interest in developing our faith makes such detail counterproductive. He told Abraham to leave his home, but He did not tell him where he was going; He gave Joseph a dream of the future, but no road map or time table for getting there; When Paul had the desire to go preach in Asia, the Spirit would not let him, instead he was given a dream of a man in Macedonia and nothing more… over and over we see God give His servants a vision and then expect them to rely on Him to guide them to that vision. Even Jesus said that He didn’t do anything that He didn’t see the Father do first.
While God can and does give us a vision for the future, we must understand that our view of it is partial at best (i.e. we know in part, we prophesy in part, we see as through a glass dimly). While the world casts a vision and then stays focused on it, we as children of God must remain focused on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. If we become too locked into our vision, we can easily become task driven instead of driven by the Holy Spirit; goal oriented instead of people oriented and so focused on our long term goals that we miss what God is doing today.
If we find ourselves stepping over, around, or through, people to bring about our vision, I’d suggest that we’ve lost our eternal perspective. I do believe the Lord has a vision for our lives and His church, but that the biggest obstacle to His plan is our plan. Without His guidance, the best we can achieve is a bigger and busier church. Yet with His guidance, we can change the world. Unless the house is built using the Lords plan, we labor in vain.
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 »