At the time of this writing, my two youngest granddaughters are 2 and 3 years old respectively. Though they are cousins, they have spent a tremendous amount of their young lives together, and relate to each other more like siblings. When they are apart, they pine away for each other, and whenever they come together, it is with great enthusiasm and affection. But I’ve noticed that it doesn’t take very long for that initial excitement to wear off, and for contentiousness to rise up in its place.
It tends to start with one of them noticing what the other one has in their hands, or maybe what they’re wearing, and wanting it for themselves. In such moments, you can offer them something else, but once they get their eyes (and hearts) fixed on that one “thing”, it becomes the only thing that will do. There can be doll houses, and scooters, and stuffed animals, but they will suddenly be in a death match over some little plastic piece from yesterday’s Happy Meal.
One may like hamburgers, while the other prefers chicken nuggets, but when they’re together they insist on having whatever the other one is having, even if they won’t actually eat it. If you don’t get them both the same thing, one will feel as though you have somehow favored the other, and treated them unfairly.
When we have only one of the girls, they can go through long stretches of the day being fairly content, but when they are together, it is difficult to go 15 minutes without some form of conflict. Despite their genuine affection for each other, this endless cycle of comparing, coveting and competing tends to steal the joy of their time together.
Anyone who has spent much time around toddlers, or young children would likely attest to the fact that this kind of behavior is typical, especially amongst children who grow up together (e.g. siblings). But something that is rarely acknowledged is how intact this pattern carries over into our adult interactions. While we may eventually learn not to throw ourselves on the floor and cry over the sippy cup, we often remain just as prone to our emotional tantrums, which can be even more destructive than those of our childhood.
This becomes most evident when we try to gather with people we claim to care about, whether that is our family, our neighbors, or in our churches. Though we enthusiastically endorse the concepts of tight-knit families, healthy communities, and Christian fellowship, we struggle to achieve or sustain any of them. Like my granddaughters, we like the idea of being together, yet rarely experience the fulfillment that was meant to accompany it; because like them, we fall into this perilous cycle.
Jesus said the way people would be able to distinguish His followers from other groups would be by the way they loved one another, and that is a standard the “Christian” community has rarely risen to. Indeed, “church people” are more typically known for their divisive and contentious behavior.
While some might want to rationalize that this is simply a maturity issue, I would beg to differ. In my experience, the most seasoned congregants are frequently the most zealously quarrelsome, and sadly, gatherings of religious leaders are generally the clearest example of the compare-covet-compete dynamic.
As western Christianity continues to abandon concepts like dying to self, and being transformed into Christ’s image, in favor of promoting ideals like empowerment, and self-actualization, this issue is bound to get worse. “Self” is the toxin that ultimately poisons unity.
We see this played out in the entertainment world, as young musicians band together in order to create something transcendent. At first, they openly share their gifts, and often go through years of struggle together to achieve their dreams. But upon finding success, this bond is frequently destroyed by power struggles, greed and envy.
Similarly, young athletes will often team together in pursuit of a championship. On the way up, players will make sacrifices and accept the role the team needs them to play. But after a taste of success, everyone wants to be treated like a star, and the team chemistry is destroyed.
As disciples of Christ, we cannot afford to continue to fall into this standard pattern of human behavior. Unless and until we confront the issue of “self”, we have no hope of ever functioning as a body, where each part provides something for the greater good of the whole (Rom.12:3-8, 1Cor.12:12-26).
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 »