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.
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 »