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).”
Bjcorbin's Blog 
Us and Them
Posted in Commentaries, tagged admonishment, core values, correction, end times, experience, father, guarded, inclination, inheritance, leader, leadership, paradigm, rebuke, receive, sermon, skepticism, Sugar Daddy, testimony, them, training, trustworthy, us on September 18, 2025| Leave a Comment »
I have found that we as people tend to listen to testimonies differently than we do sermons. When we’re aware that someone is trying to influence our perspective there is a guardedness that rises up in order to protect our core values. We naturally evaluate the source of this new information, to see if it seems trustworthy or whether it might pose some type of threat.
We generally listen with a degree of skepticism until we establish some sense of connection to the provider of this alternate viewpoint. If internal alarms begin to sound in our head, it becomes very difficult to receive anything, regardless of the content of the message.
On the other hand, when someone tells their story we tend to be less guarded and to look for points of connection with their experience. When they speak of struggling as a child, we often recall our struggles as a child. When they testify to moments of despair, we generally remember our moments of despair. And when they share their moments of triumph, we are often reminded of our own redemption story. Even if their journey is very different than ours, we can relate to points of it in a very personal way.
I would describe these two dynamics as the “Us and Them” paradigms. New information is generally received through the “Them” portal (e.g. that’s your opinion, that’s your experience, that’s your interpretation, that’s fine for you, but…) until that data and its source are vetted through our internal filtering system. Once credibility is established, we can shift to the “Us” portal, where these things can be viewed as trustworthy and pertinent to our own experience.
I would also suggest that we tend to interpret the scriptures through these same information biases. We are naturally drawn to the passages about God’s faithfulness and the promises He’s made. We receive them through the “Us” bias because we view them as pertaining to us, and our lives.
But warnings about unfaithful Israel and the folly of the Pharisees are usually viewed through the “Them” lens, as we struggle to place ourselves in those contexts. There is a natural inclination to push such incrimination away from us. Within this pattern, God’s promises to His covenant people are banked in our account as part of our inheritance, yet somehow His warnings of straying hearts and a love of temporal things are seen as “Them” issues.
We’ve even developed theologies based on the idea that Israel’s unfaithfulness disqualified them from God’s promises, while God’s grace somehow justifies us in spite our own lack of fidelity. Once again, their transgressions are viewed through the “Them” lens (i.e. as pertaining to a certain people at a specific time and place), while God’s enduring patience is received through the “Us” channel (i.e. transcendent to time and space).
This pattern becomes even more troubling when viewed through the context of Jesus’ return. There are so many scriptures that appear to be warnings for individuals who count themselves as believers, or followers, or even disciples. Passages referencing a people who possess a form of godliness but deny the power thereof (2Tim.3:5), or who honor Jesus with their lips, but whose hearts are far from Him (Matt.15:8), and/or those who do things in His name, but don’t really know Him (Matt.7:21-23). Yet, if we process these words through the “Them” paradigm, refusing to entertain the possibility that He’s speaking to “Us”, we’re not likely to heed those cautions.
Similarly, the gospels prominently feature tales of Jesus’ adversarial relationship with the religious leaders of His day (i.e., Pharisees, Sadducees). His strong rebuke of their hubris and haughty attitude is obviously a cautionary tale for anyone who might assume the mantle of leadership within the church.
Yet the sad history of western religion is littered with corrupt, perverse, and even abusive leaders, who claim to represent Christ. It is not as if this topic is subtly addressed or thinly veiled within the scripture, but clearly the warnings have not been heeded. I have little doubt that this type of counsel is generally viewed through the “Them” lens.
Despite the fact that many Christians would say that we are fast approaching, or perhaps even living amid the “end times”, there seems to be little concern with regard to the Lord’s admonishments to the seven churches in the book of Revelation. Who is He speaking to with these warnings? What does it mean to forsake our first love (Rev.2:1-7), who are the false prophets that threaten to lead us astray (Rev.2:18-29), and what causes Him to view us as “lukewarm” (Rev.3:14-22)? If we process these words through the “Them” paradigm, we run the risk of being spewed from His mouth.
Paul asserted that “all scripture” is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training (2Tim.3:16), while the Hebrew writer reminds us that every good father chastens their children (Heb.12:5-8). If we want to claim the promises as our own, we must also be willing to receive the training and correction of the Lord. We cannot afford to have “Us” scriptures and “Them” scriptures, as we need to hear what the Spirit of the Lord is saying to the church in this very hour (Rev.2-3). If the only thing we can receive from Him is promises, blessings, or encouragement we diminish His role from that of a Father to that of a Sugar Daddy.
Rate this:
Read Full Post »