(Written many years ago)
Long ago, in a kingdom far away, there was a magnificent king, whose reign was without precedence. His wife the queen had borne him many sons, and with each kingdom that his army conquered, he would crown one of his sons as the ruler over that new land. This continued until all of his sons were on the thrones of their own kingdoms. Yet even then his domain grew.
On this night, the king’s palace was filled with the noise that accompanies a large celebration; there was music and laughter and occasionally boisterous shouts of joy. Despite these festivities, the king’s personal servant (Thaddeus) noticed that the king was alone on the vast balcony adjacent to the ballroom. Though Thaddeus knew from the king’s posture that he was deep in thought, his affection for the king compelled him to interrupt. He was not afraid to approach, as the king was always patient and kind with his servants. As Thaddeus reached him, he bowed low and said,
“Begging your pardon, sire, is all well with you?”
The king’s eyes remained fixed on the dimly lit horizon, but his face shifted into a shallow smile; “You are a faithful servant, Thaddeus, and I am thankful for your concern,” he said.
This response left Thaddeus in the awkward position of not knowing whether to dismiss himself or to wait for additional response. As Thaddeus was prone to, he chose to wait. After a thoughtful pause, the king continued
“I am pondering matters of the kingdom and I find myself with the need to speak of it.” At that, he turned to Thaddeus and looked him in the eyes. “Would you be willing to serve me in such a way?” he said.
Thaddeus felt the blood rush to his face. While the king had, on occasion, asked him about happenings within the household, he wondered what he could possibly contribute to a discussion on matters of the kingdom. His voice broke slightly as he responded, “Sire, I will endeavor to serve you in any way that you see fit, but wouldn’t the members of your court be better suited for such a dialogue?”
“Indeed, that would often be true, but these matters concern them, thus it would seem imprudent in this instance,” he replied.
Thaddeus bowed his head and said, “Let it be as you wish, lord.”
The king began, “Today, we celebrate the victory over still another foreign kingdom and yet, for the first time, I have not a son to crown as its king.” Then, after another thoughtful pause he continued, “Many suppose that I have bestowed each of my sons with his own kingdom as a gift to them, yet in truth I meant for each of my sons to be a gift to the people within those lands. I know the hearts of my sons and had one of them not been true, I would not have entrusted him with a crown. I have found that royalty is not passed through the bloodlines, but that it is carefully nurtured in one’s heart. As I look out on the vast horizon, I must now distinguish the man whose heart is prepared to sit upon the throne of this new kingdom.” Again the king paused, and then thoughtfully said, “The heart of a man is not easily judged by the heart of another.”
Thaddeus could feel the weight of the king’s thoughts, and hoping to encourage him, he said, “You are a good and wise king, surely you will find this man whom you seek.”
The king smiled broadly, and with warmth in his face, he asked Thaddeus, “Whom do you see who might be fit for the rule of a kingdom?”
Thaddeus felt unworthy to even ponder such a thing, but he was intent on serving his king. “Your court is filled with noble men, lord, surely one of them would be fit,” he responded.
“Speak freely, Thaddeus, whom do you see?” asked the king.
“I see Sir Fredric, the governor of the southern province, sire. He seems to be a man of influence and persuasion, knowledgeable in the ways of government and diplomacy. Surely such a man would make a fine king,” said Thaddeus.
“Indeed, what you have said of Fredric is true, he is a very capable man and certainly well respected, but while he is knowledgeable in matters of the kingdom, he seems to lack an awareness of those closest to him. His own family suffers from his neglect of their most basic needs. A man who fails to provide for his own family is not fit for the leadership of any other,” the king responded.
Thaddeus was embarrassed by the king’s quick dismissal of his suggestion and he wished that the king would simply dismiss him, but instead the king nodded for him to continue.
“What of your scribe, Denard? He is a man who knows your decrees and tenants well, a man who is knowledgeable in matters of truth,” suggested Thaddeus.
“Again, my servant, you have spoken well. Denard is a man who is knowledgeable of the truth, but, alas, his heart is full of compromise. Many are the men who acknowledge the truth, but few are those who embrace it. A man who does not hold to the truth is like a ship without a rudder, he is a vessel unworthy of being followed,” concluded the king.
Again, Thaddeus yearned to flee from this dialogue. He was clearly not fit to speak of such things, but again the king nodded for him to continue.
“Sire, what of Sir Stephen, the head of your royal guard? He seems to be a man without fear, decisive and strong, a leader among men. Surely such a man could lead a kingdom,” asserted Thaddeus.
“Indeed, Stephen is a valiant warrior and quite naturally a leader, but he is also a man of little mercy. While that quality may serve him on the battlefield, it is needful in matters of the kingdom,” said the king.
Exasperated, Thaddeus allowed his discouragement to spill onto his face, but the patient eyes of the king quickly calmed him. “Go on,” said the king.
“Lord, what of the sage, Philibus? He is a man of great wisdom and learning, even you look to him for counsel. Certainly he would have the wisdom to guide a kingdom,” said Thaddeus.
“Indeed, Philibus is a man full of wise words and I do value his counsel, but wise words are merely seeds, which will only blossom into wisdom when they find a fertile heart to act upon them. Each person has been endowed with certain gifts, and to be sure, Philibus is among the most gifted men in the kingdom; but while the nature of a gift ought to breed humility, it has instead become vanity in Philibus. He is a man of little discretion, blinded by his conceit and ambition,” said the king.
At this, Thaddeus dropped his head, feeling as though he had failed in his service to the king.
The king sensed this frustration and asked, “Thaddeus, are you my slave or my servant?”
Thaddeus was surprised by the question and his eyes rose to meet the king’s. “I am your servant, sire,” he said.
“What do you see as the difference between the servant and the slave?”
“The servant is free to leave whenever he chooses,” he replied.
“Then what keeps you here, Thaddeus?” asked the king.
“It is my honor to serve you, my king,” he said.
“Do you despise your station as a mere servant?” asked the king.
Again, surprised by the question, Thaddeus replied, “No, my lord, I believe that my service is virtuous.”
The king again smiled broadly and said, “I believe that too.”
Thaddeus was confused by the king’s inquiries and again wondered if he should dismiss himself, but after another short pause, the king began to speak,
“Thaddeus, why shouldn’t I crown you as the king of this new land?”
Thaddeus was stunned by the king’s question and he stumbled to find words, “I am but a lowly servant,” he said.
“Do you believe that you are lowly by fate or by destiny?” asked the king.
Thaddeus had never considered such a thing and was at a loss to respond. Before he could answer the king answered,
“I believe that it is by fate, but that you have been destined for greater things”
“My lord, I am honored by your words, but what do I know of ruling a kingdom?” asked Thaddeus.
“You have been at my side for years, your understanding is deeper than you know and a heart that yearns to serve will always find a way to serve. It is the only heart that can be entrusted with the lives of the people,” responded the king.
Thaddeus stared into the compassionate eyes of his king and he felt hot tears streaming down his face. The king reached down, placing his hand on Thaddeus’ head, and said, “You shall now have a whole kingdom to serve.”
In the years that followed that fateful day, the wise judgment of the magnificent king was affirmed as good king Thaddeus served the people of his kingdom with humility, honesty, wisdom and mercy.
“For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest (Luke 9:48)”
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 »