This Is Not The End

One of the most contentious and vicious presidential election years is now officially behind us.

The President-Elect is Donald J. Trump.

The House of Representatives is under Republican Control.

The U.S. Senate is under Republican Control.

Presidential hopeful Hillary R. Clinton gave a very nice concession speech.

Current President Barack Obama stated that he has accepted the results.

So naturally, it's all over, right?

Sadly, for many people, this is not the end of the season of fear they walked into when Trump became the Republican nominee. These folks are focused upon the rhetoric that came out of Trump's campaign, and the horrible things stated in Clinton's campaign advertisements. They are looking at Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, and his alleged affiliation with various groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They are replaying in their minds the things stated about Muslims, homosexuals, lesbians, Hispanics, and certain women during the campaign.

For these people, this is the end of the world- Or their world, at least.

Friends, I would like to bring to you today some very good news: This Is Not The End.

President-Elect Donald Trump

Yes, Donald Trump ran a nasty, spiteful and inflammatory campaign. He managed to anger nearly every societal and cultural group in the nation. He exhibited some of the worst behavior ever seen in a presidential candidate in the history of the nation.

I will say that at least he didn't challenge his opponent to a duel as happened a couple times in the late 1700's, but that's not really saying anything, is it?

Nevertheless, let us be encouraged by the fact that our government is structured in such a way as to prevent Trump from being able to enact or implement much of what he said he wanted to do. Moreover, those things he spoke of which would be beneficial for the U.S. economy, tax code, and more- These things will be examined and scrutinized. The checks and balances of this country are in place for just this sort of event, and as such, I look forward with a great deal of hope.

More on why this is a little later.

Hillary Clinton

While Clinton began her concession speech saying that the results were "...painful, and will be for a long time," she also went on to say that the citizens of the United States "...owe him an open mind and the chance to lead." She went on to encourage her supporters to remain involved with the political process, stating "...let’s do all we can to keep advancing the causes and values we all hold dear. Making our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top, protecting our country and protecting our planet. And breaking down all the barriers that hold any American back from achieving their dreams. ...our responsibility as citizens is to keep doing our part to build that better, stronger, fairer America we seek. "

Clinton ran a campaign that was, in many respects, as dirty and nasty as Trump's. If you are a regular reader, you know that I supported neither major candidate; I always vote my conscience, and I always will. With that being said, much of what Clinton had to say Wednesday morning was excellent; it was encouraging; and though she did talk about the pain of losing, she also spoke a great deal about hope.

Once more, I find myself agreeing with Clinton; moreover, I applaud her intestinal fortitude and her refusal to sink to the lows that supporters from both sides have seen and surpassed.

President Barack Obama 

"I had a chance to talk to President-elect Trump last night -- about 3:30 in the morning, I think it was -- to congratulate him on winning the election. And I had a chance to invite him to come to the White House tomorrow to talk about making sure that there is a successful transition between our presidencies.

"Now, it is no secret that the President-elect and I have some pretty significant differences. But remember, eight years ago, President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush’s team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running. And one thing you realize quickly in this job is that the presidency, and the vice presidency, is bigger than any of us.

"So I have instructed my team to follow the example that President Bush’s team set eight years ago, and work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect -- because we are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country. The peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And over the next few months, we are going to show that to the world.

"...I'm confident that this incredible journey that we're on as Americans will go on. And I am looking forward to doing everything that I can to make sure that the next President is successful in that. I have said before, I think of this job as being a relay runner -- you take the baton, you run your best race, and hopefully, by the time you hand it off you're a little further ahead, you've made a little progress. And I can say that we've done that, and I want to make sure that handoff is well-executed, because ultimately we're all on the same team."

Genuinely speaking, this is the proudest I have ever been of our current president. All that I can say is well done, Mr. President. Well said, and well done.

The U.S. Senate

The Senate of the United States had 36 seats open to change this past election cycle, and though largely eclipsed by the presidential election, the race for Senate was just as contentious in some places. In the end, the Republican party maintained control of the Senate, which was a joy for some, and a painful defeat for others.

Republican control of the Senate has had many people concerned over the direction the nation could turn, given the election of Donald Trump. With one party holding control of Senate and the White House, there has been speculation that the United States is about to undergo tremendous change; and potentially not the sort that they'd want to see. Verbalized fears of border walls, banned homosexuality, criminalized abortion, and deported Muslims have been the most common that I have overheard.

However, there is reason for hope, my friends. I'll get into why before too much longer, but believe me when I say that things are not as bleak as they may appear.

The House of Representatives

Not many networks talked about this much, and mainly due to the fact that they were too busy covering the antics of the presidential candidates. Nevertheless, all 435 seats in the House were open to change in this past election. Just as with the Senate race, the competition between Representative hopefuls was quite a spectacle in its own right.

When the dust cleared, the Democrats had won 192 seats in the House. The Republicans took 239 seats, holding onto their majority control. Again, this has caused a great deal of fear in the hearts and minds of many people, for the same reasons as the Republican controlled Senate raises.

What is important to note in the wake of this Republican "sweep" (as some have called it), is that many of these Representatives have a track record. Why is that important, you may ask; it is important for the same reasons as the track record of Senators and Presidential candidates: The track record tells the story that people and various media sources will try to hide.

Where's The Good News?

If you are a Democrat, a Liberal, or like me are simply fed up with both major parties, you may be asking exactly where the good news in all of this resides. Where is it? More importantly: What is it?

To begin with we live in the United States of America, which is perhaps the best place that an election result such as this one could possibly happen. I'm not promoting some hyper-exceptionalism or ultra-nationalistic pride when I write this. What I am saying is that our government is set up in such a way as to almost perfectly handle such events. Look at this diagram with me.

According to some folks I have spoken with, their children's schools are not teaching the structure of the United States government. (I have heard from some teachers that this is not taught until high school, but I'm sure it depends upon districts and school systems.) So whether you never learned this; or if you are like a few friends of mine who actually requested I include this section as a refresher; here is a simplified layout of how our government's branches work.

This is called the system of checks and balances, and this is what keeps everyone playing by the rules, more or less. A President does have the ability to introduce legislation to be made law; but Congress must approve that legislation both in the House and in the Senate. Congress can introduce and pass legislation with the intent of making it law, but the President must first sign it before it actually becomes law. The court system, specifically the Supreme Court, can declare laws unconstitutional; and contrary to popular opinion, they can do so without a case coming before them. A President can utilize Executive Orders, (and these are among the "presidential acts" in the diagram), but the Supreme Court can render them invalid by declaring them unconstitutional.

So let's look at a few of the scenarios that people are most concerned about under a Trump administration:

• Trump Introduces Legislation To Build A Wall - Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agree that this country has an immigration issue. Many also agree that part of that issue is illegal immigration, or people crossing into the United States without proper documentation. Much of that illegal immigration does come from Mexico, though there are illegal immigrants in the United States from all over the world. However, most lawmakers do not support the building of a wall along the Mexican-U.S. border. As President, Trump could introduce legislation providing for the building of a wall, but based upon the track records of those in Congress, it would never become law; they would instead debate, argue and haggle for some other method of immigration control, and we would likely see the issue die on the House floor, never making it to Senate. 

• Trump Issues An Executive Order Banning Homosexuality - Due to the nature of his campaign, many people are concerned about the issue of homosexuality and the free practice thereof. (For the sake of this illustration, I am addressing homosexual practices only, and will explain why shortly.) Let us say that as President, Trump issues an Executive Order that bans homosexuality. It would certainly create a public outcry, but it would have no effect- Why? Because the Supreme Court has already ruled in a number of cases involving homosexuality, homosexual practices, and the rights of homosexual men and women. As a result, the moment that the Order is issued, the Supreme Court would immediately declare it unconstitutional and render it void. This also applies to any attempt by Trump to criminalize abortion.

• Trump Demands Congress Deport All Muslims - Let us imagine that out of all the vitriol that came from the Trump campaign, the expressed desire to deport Muslims actually materializes in the form of a President Trump ordering Congress to find a way  to do just that. At this point, Congress will almost unanimously laugh at him. The orders of a President are not the same as those from a King or Emperor: In short, they do not have to be followed in the same manner. Could Congress work something out that Trump would sign into law, such as a national registry, a public identifier or a special tax? They most certainly could, but in that unlikely event the Supreme Court would step in declaring the law unconstitutional.

As we look forward in time to the administration of Donald J. Trump, I urge everyone to remember something important: The President of the United States has very little absolute power. The only absolute power that a President does have is his/her ability to pardon, and to a lesser extent, initiate foreign policy.

President Obama was able to accomplish what he did in his eight years because he had like-minded people in control of Congress; he didn't do it on his own. His Executive Orders crossed lines of propriety in many respects, but the large majority of them stopped just shy of snubbing the Constitution of the United States.

Trump does have a Republican controlled Congress, but he does not have a Congress controlled by like-minded people. Unless he proves himself a much more capable leader than he presented during his run, it unlikely that he will ever get such a Congress, let alone a second term.

If you still feel the need to take refuge in Canada, that is entirely your decision; I understand that there are a couple people I'm acquainted with who are planning that move now. I do not condone such action, as I personally see it as a type of cowardice; however, neither will I condemn it in such broad strokes as to suggest that everyone holds my view. If your last act as a U.S. citizen is to run, then my response is "May your legs not grow weary, may your heart never faint, and may you find what you seek." To further clarify: If I were to run, I would consider myself a coward, for that is my personal standard; if others choose to run, I wish them the best.

But make no mistake: This is not the end.



NOTE: If you are a Christian, the following section is especially important.

How Christians Should Respond

As believers in Christ, we know the Bible tells us that we have not been given a spirit of fear, but of peace, and of love, and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). We are told that perfect love casts out all fear (1 John 4:18). We know that we are also told not to worry about what is to come (Luke 12:25-31), and that God is ultimately in control (Psalm 27:1; Romans 8:38-39; John 16:33). Finally, by way of reassurance, we are told that God exerts authority over our rulers (Proverbs 21:1).

We are also told that we are to be lights in a dark world (Matthew 5:14-16). Paul encourages us to live at peace with one another (Romans 12:18) and not to be a stumbling block to our brethren (1 Corinthians 8:9) or to anyone else (1 Corinthians 10:32)! We are also told to share in another's joy and in their sorrow (Romans 12:15), not to treat anyone as beneath us (Romans 12:16), and not to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17).

Bearing all of these things in mind; taking into account that we as followers of Christ are to be His reflections on earth; factoring in that we who believe are often the only Gospel that some people will ever read; I believe it is our solemn and sacred duty to look at this time in history not as a burden, but as a time to shoulder the burdens of others. We ought not look upon these coming four years with fear, but with hope in our God, who alone can change and turn the hearts of men. We should not gloat over the despair and despondency of those who mourn, but seek to comfort, encourage and uplift them.

Doing anything less than this is to misrepresent Christ and place ourselves as a stumbling block before a world seeking Him- Though they know not what they seek.

In conclusion, Christians: We must behave and respond as Christ. He exemplified Isaiah 61:1, and promoted justice as Isaiah 1:17 said- He stood for the oppressed, championed the widow and provided for the orphan (even if symbolically). Christ then told His disciples, and by extension all who believe: "These things and more shall you do." (John 14:12) He did not say that we would do things He did not do and not do things He did; or more clearly stated, "some of these things and less." We are to follow His example- Period.

So let's start today by bringing hope to those in despair.

Contrast Within Pastoral Leadership Part 2

In continuing with the contrast of pastoral leadership, allow me to quickly recap the inspiration for these posts and the first three points I looked at in part one of this series. If you would like to read the first part, you can do so here.

I recently received a list of seven points explaining why the Christian Church does not need a senior pastor. While I agree with each point, I also saw a need to point out why they do not apply across the board. Painting with a broad brush is useful when seeking to point out a problem, but having done this many times I understand also that doing so can cause unintended repercussions. Knowing the author of this list would certainly not intend to cause division within a local body headed by a genuine servant-leader under the direction of the Lord, I am in this series seeking to list each point, give examples, and show exceptions to what are fast becoming generally true observations within the Western Church.

The points already mentioned are as follows:

1. Power Tends to Corrupt.

2. The senior CEO Pastor role just propagates the outdated power of the denomination / institution.

3. Holy Spirit instruction and direction trumps ALL other forms of authority.

Now continuing from the list...

4. Horizontal fellowship trumps butts in the pews and facing forward to our “King” Pastor.

The struggle for spiritual relevance and significance is usually not a people problem but a system problem. The answers aren't always going to be found in and from existing human leadership – but those who actually can hear the whispers of the Holy Spirit. Even the smallest child who can speak – [and] has the potential of speaking the words of the Holy Spirit. If only the 'leaders' are speaking during the fellowship time – it is guaranteed that MOST of what the Holy Spirit was saying during that time is missed. The answer is to create a space of fellowship for the Holy Spirit to speak through whatever means He sees fit!

I have been present in local bodies wherein a child spoke words of great encouragement and also of great conviction. The idea of a child speaking may seem foreign to some, but I harken back to the words of the Apostle Paul when writing to Timothy: "Let no one look down on you because of your age." There should certainly be something in place to a child from running wild through service, but much of that discipline ought to be instilled at home through the attention of loving and godly parents.
I personally see nothing wrong in requiring a child to speak first to their parent(s) before being allowed to speak so that the adult in authority over them may discern the accuracy of what the child believes to be from the Lord. However, we should not be so demanding as to reprimand a child for speaking in the moment if that word is indeed prompted by the Holy Spirit. A reprimand is in order if their speech is not in line with the Word of God, but in this way they are being taught in the assembly what the voice of the Lord sounds like, as opposed to their own minds creating something they believe to be profound.

In much the same way, any adult ought to be able to speak up when the Holy Spirit prompts such speech. No pastor is ever justified in shushing an adult if the word they give is backed by Scripture and prompted by the Holy Spirit. However, a good pastor will also take time after the service to take aside an adult who was in error and reprimand them privately, in humility and love. Anything else is a violation of the pastoral role, unless the word spoken was so grave in its error that correction must be given immediately.
An example of this last statement: There was a time when a woman in my church spoke up, stating matter-of-factly that the End Times, the final Antichrist, and the tribulation, could all be staved off or avoided entirely if the Body of Christ joined in prayer against it. Due to the gravity of the statement, correction was needed immediately; yet even in correcting the error of what had been spoken, those who held the woman accountable did so with love and humility. In this instance, it was clear that they did not wish to embarrass or shame her, but rather show why the statement was in error. This is immediate correction of a false statement done right.

So how can one know if one's church is quenching the Holy Spirit, and thus dead in many respects?

If one's church would be disrupted by a single "amen" during the preaching of the word, it may be dead.

If one's leadership refuses to acknowledge and pray for a need if it disrupts the order of service, one's church may be dead.

If one can set one's watch by where one is in service, one's church may be dead.

The pattern herein should be clear at this time.


5. We need humble spiritual leaders/elders, not power hungry rulers/CEO Senior Pastors.

Do I think the role of pastor is not needed? No. I think it is a gift to the Body – but it is not a dictatorial/authoritative model role –but one as a fellow sheep who always points you to the true Shepherd/Jesus, and always is looking out for your best interests and looks to give His love to you on every occasion. Think of it as not a 'leadership' role but as a personal assistant who is there to make sure you have everything you need. That perspective is HIGHLY different that how it is currently viewed and used. Think Jesus washing his disciple's feet. Actually Paul lists 4/5 gifting roles in the Body that are there TO SERVE, not to rule. The actual scriptural role of a 'pastor'/shepherd is greatly different than what we see in the American Church currently. ...Leadership by example will always be healthier than leading by authoritarian rule. The former allows for the blossoming of the human spirit under freedom. The latter blocks the flourishing of the human spirit under rule of tyranny. Real leaders don’t need followers. They don’t even need power. They lead by prestigious example and slip out of the strangleholds of power like a snake shedding its skin.

Humility is the callsign of a genuine leader of any sort, but is especially important for those within the pastoral office. As is mentioned in the above quote, Christ modeled this in stark contrast to the stereotypical pastor of today by washing the feet of His disciples.

There are genuine servant-leaders out there. They often go unseen because it is not the limelight they seek, but rather the Light of the World shining into whatever life they are able to impact. I am blessed to say that I have personally known a few of these men and women, and they are truly led by the Holy Spirit. (To those who were just now horrified that I would include women as I am speaking about pastoral leadership: That is another topic for another day.)

The fact of the matter is that leading from the "authoritarian role" as stated above is generally a poor model to pattern pastoral leadership after; not only because Christ did not do so, but also because we can see the ill effects of this kind of leadership all around us. Corporations fail, federal governments grow corrupt, and organizations of all kinds implode due to placing a great deal of the steering power (authority) in a single individual. "A true leader is one who leads by example," is a quote that most have heard at least once in their lives, and it is based upon Scripture. So if that sort of leadership is based upon Scripture, then what sort of defense can pastors that lead by intimidation, fear, or authority offer?

If one's church demands absolute  and blind adherence to those in authority, it may be unbiblical.

If one's pastors demand the flock take their word in place of God's Word, it is unbiblical.

If one's church leadership is appointed by popularity and not by qualification, it may be unbiblical.

6. Bestowing the role of a Senior CEO Pastor leads to apathetic pew sitters and goats.

“The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.”

~Stanley Milgram 

A community leading itself tends to be a proactive community. A community commanded by a leader atop a hierarchy tends to be an apathetic, politically and spiritually myopic, and civically inert / salt-lost-its-usefulness community. So it goes with the “Senior CEO Pastor” tossing dictates down an ill-conceived chain of command. We have an entire American Church playing the victim, caught-up in a viciously codependent chain of obedience.

 Contrary to popular opinion, the opposite of love is not hate, but rather apathy. Hate most often comes from love, whether genuine or twisted, and is directed at whatever is perceived as harmful to the object of that love. This is why God hates sin; why the Psalmist as able to say that he "hates with a holy hatred"; and why we can honestly say that there are things we hate. If one is allergic to gluten, for instance, it may not be uncommon to hear one give voice to their hatred of it; it is to be expected, as gluten for that person causes harm.

Apathy, in contrast, is bred through accepted, learned or forced codependence upon an individual or group of individuals. The example often used in political circles is the current condition of the United States, wherein a large percentage of people are entirely apathetic in the face of the coming election; they have grown so due to their codependence upon the federal government, and so long as it continues to give them what they believe they need, nothing really matters. The politicians meanwhile are dependent upon the citizens for their position and income, and thus the chain of  apathetic codependence is forged.
It is much the same in a poorly operating church: The people grow dependent upon their leader for spiritual guidance and direction, while the leadership are dependent upon the people for their continued authority, and in many cases, their income. None of those within the flock are interested in stepping forward as a leader, or as a servant; and the leadership have no interest in being a follower or of losing their (oftentimes) laborless income.

The image used for this section is exceptionally appropriate, as the quote on the left comes from a meme created using the transcript of a large and well-known church; led by a larger-than-life and well-known pastor; who misquoted Joel 2:25. Those within the flock seemingly accepted it as Gospel, and no one in the entire auditorium (at least, no one caught on camera) were looking at their Bibles: They were too busy looking at the celebrity pastor. Someone from that service created a meme from it, they were so moved; and yet, their apathy is on display for all their posterity. For as long as the recordings of this sermon exist, this terrible misquote will continue to lead astray those looking to this specific man for guidance. On the right is the actual text of Joel 2:25, and the egregious error of the pastor in question can be seen in full detail; yet so too can the pitiful and genuinely frightening apathy of his flock.

If no one in one's church opens a Bible at any time during service, one's church may be apathetic.

If the pastor does not quote Scripture accurately, or paraphrase properly, one's church may be apathetic.

If one simply doesn't care, just as no other member of one's church cares, one's church is apathetic.


7. A Senior CEO American Pastor role just isn't scriptural in NT theology.

Paul sets up an elder requirements for Timothy and Titus to follow, not a top-down Pastoral executive structure for the setting up of 'churches' or fellowships. The fellowships were community based and meeting from house-to-house. Sure there were evangelists, prophets, and apostles that would come through the towns and cities and speak/teach and fellowship with the groups. And as we read Paul's epistles and John's and Peter's we can get an idea of the style of each of them. They were all different – as we all are. But those apostles and other gifts to the Body came through to serve and equip NOT to be served.

Herein is the crux of the matter, though it may at first be a bit confusing.

A properly running church has a top-down structure only when one lays it out on paper. This is, in some ways, the result of the servant-leadership of the church operating as they should; but also because human nature requires an authority structure of some kind, even if it is solely for the purpose of rebellion. Thus, in a properly functioning church wherein the servant-leaders are regularly seen meeting the needs of the church body, they would be considered the highest point of that church on paper.
In actual practice, however, it looks much different. The pastor as a servant-leader does not guide by authority but rather by example. The elders, deacons, and any assistant pastors do the same in such a church, while the rest of the body benefits from their ministry. In turn, the individual members of the body are instructed, encouraged and strengthened to take on servant-leadership positions of their own; and in this way, the church grows.

In my own church, it is not uncommon for our pastoral leadership to tap a member of the congregation to give a message; share a devotion; help to lead worship; or a dozen other things usually expected to be done by the leadership of the church. A foreign concept in the eyes of many mega-churches today, yet very biblical and sound. By doing this, the pastors are fostering, encouraging and challenging the congregation to grow and move into the calling that God has placed upon their individual lives.

In truth, all other forms of leadership in a church are very much new age in their approach; while I understand the need for structure and leadership, this fact remains incontrovertible. Another term for this sort of structure is Nicolaitan, and in Revelation 2:6 and 15 Jesus Christ tells the churches of Ephesus and Smyrna that this is something He hates. The Body of Christ is not intended to be housed in a single building to which believers drive an hour to attend service; it is meant to be a living organism that spreads across the globe.

If one must get approval from one's pastor before opening a Bible study in one's home, one's church may be Nicolaitan.

If one must get approval from one's leadership to attend service at another church, one's church is Nicolaitan.

If one must get permission to speak the Gospel outside the four walls, one's church is Nicolaitan, and to reiterate, hated by God.


This concludes this series. As always, please feel free to share across social media, and comment below. May God bless you abundantly as you seek to do His will and continue in obedience to His Word.

Contrast Within Pastoral Leadership Part 1

Recently I was sent a list of seven points explaining why the Christian Church does not need a senior pastor. As I read, I found myself in an unusual position: One in which I agreed wholeheartedly with each point and argument made, but was also able to see why they could not be applied across the board.

As amazing or fantastical as it may sound, there actually are pastors out there that have never taken a cent from the church they lead; who have never used their "power" for the purposes of manipulation; and who genuinely perform their roles as an honest-to-God servant-leader. I know this because I have been under the leadership of at least two of these pastors, and my life is so much the better for it. As a direct result of these people, I am able to say that I know what true leadership within the Body of Christ is, because I was able to see it exemplified.

However, the points are still very much accurate for the vast majority of hyper-publicized churches around the world. This is a sad statement to make, yet it is unfortunately a true statement also. The facts, figures, eyewitness accounts, and very public self-destruction of such churches all support this statement also.

Because of this sad truth, I would like to present to you the seven points I received, and contrast these with genuine servant-leaders that I have known. It is my hope that by seeing the examples and the exceptions, you might come to recognize what sort of leader your local body sits under.

1. Power Tends to Corrupt

From the list:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”   

- Lord Acton

This is the biggest reason why we do not need a Senior CEO Pastor. The
average human simply cannot handle power. As Abraham Lincoln observed, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Authentic power empowers others. Honest power has no need to cling to power, it releases it instead. It
spreads it out. It expiates it. It empowers others. Besides there truly is only ONE shepherd and His name is Jesus, all the rest of us are His sheep. God's Kingdom is upside down in comparison to the world's institutional model dealing with leadership. Soooo... top down authority models within the Church only create more problems.

Now, there are definitely churches that have this problem. I don't think any of us would have too hard a time of naming off some of the most visible examples, as they are in the news regularly.

However, it should be noted that there are senior pastors out there that do not utilize power with corrupted motives. I will certainly acknowledge that most of those senior pastors who have enjoyed the limelight are often there for a reason, and that not all of those reasons are noteworthy for their Christ-like qualities. With this said, it is often the pastors of small churches, with an outward focus for the community and an inward focus of service, that use the power their office has entrusted to them with humility.

So how can one tell if the pastor of one's church is utilizing power in a corrupt manner?

Well, if that pastor calls names from the pulpit, they may be power corrupt. (There is rarely a proper time for this to happen, and I personally have seen it only once in twenty years.)

If that pastor demands that people refer to them by their office at all times, in and out of church, and will publicly shame those who don't, they may be power corrupt. (It is one thing to teach about respect for a position; it is entirely different to be consumed by it to the point of hurting those that office is meant to protect.)

These are just two signs, but I believe you can see the pattern.


2. The senior CEO Pastor role just propagates the outdated power of the denomination / institution.

If anyone has ever visited an institutional or denominational church, then chances are they are very much aware of what they were visiting. However, those who attend such churches regularly, and perhaps were a part of it prior to it fitting in this category, may not realize this to be true. Thus, allow me to share from the list once again:

The Institutional / Denominational Church has followed the same structure and power hungry struggle as the 'State' (Government). The Church has become exactly like the State. The state: billions of people elbowing each other through the codependent wretchedness of hierarchical violence. The state: a propped up entity of ominous design, placating its citizens with freedom like a carrot dangling on a stick. ...Alas, the accumulation of the state has led to the erosion of individual freedom, and the Church institution / denomination has taken away the individual's freedom to be led by the Holy Spirit. A bottom-up approach toward reclaiming individual power, and thus individual freedom, should come first. But that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to what must come second (if there is to be anything left to be free in at all) –a systematic collapse from the top-down. Maybe that's why there are SO many different denominations – people want to be 'free' and thus just started another.

Once more, I can understand and appreciate where the writer is coming from. More and more, I see the writing on the wall for the Western Church, specifically those with an institutional, denominational or combination approach. Allow me to be clear: I have been to institutionalized churches that have run well; that have allowed the Holy Spirit freedom to move; and that have been full of genuinely caring people seeking the will of the Lord. Unfortunately, these have been few. I have also been to denominational churches wherein the denomination's name on the sign simply informed others of what they actually believed; and within the walls of these churches I found some of the most godly, Christ-like people I've ever come across. Again, these have been few in number.

So how can one tell if one's church has reached this point of religious depravity?

If one's church has a "if you're not for us, you're against us" attitude, it may be depraved.

If one's church leadership (that is, everyone in leadership, not just the senior pastor) lords their authority over the "peons," it may be depraved.

Again, I believe you can see the pattern.

3. Holy Spirit instruction and direction trumps ALL other forms of authority.

The problem with the institutional denominational senior CEO pastoral model is that it propagates blind obedience to --- human control, rather than individual Holy Spirit control. Is there a greater chance of mistakes being made with no 'head' senior pastor's 3 step weekly sermon to follow and just relying on the Holy Spirit? Absolutely yes. But I'd rather have more mistakes with more freedom, than less mistakes because of less freedom. ...Spiritual covering comes from God – not a human leader. Real accountability comes from very close intimate friendships, which our culture, Church, and society admittedly has lost.

Once again, this list is dead on point, and the writer touches on one of my personal hot button issues: Accountability.

In a properly operating church, the pastor is accountable to the flock, just as the flock is accountable to the leadership, and all are accountable to one another. In a poorly operating church, the pastor is above (or beyond) accountability of any kind, yet holds the flock accountable for the smallest infractions. I have been in churches wherein the pastor was carrying on two different affairs with women in the church, and everyone knew about it! Yet, that same pastor had the nerve to hold everyone else accountable for their various addictions- Sexual and otherwise. Because of his brutish approach to his position, everyone within the church had become terrified of confronting an obvious issue.

In the church I attend now, our pastors hold themselves accountable to not only their flock, but also the authority which they have voluntarily placed themselves under: Specifically, our bishop. No, this is not a bishop such as those within the Catholic church have; instead, it is based very much upon the model laid out in Acts and other Pauline letters. Yes, there is a proper method of approaching a pastor on a perceived issue; but there is also a proper method for holding anyone within the church accountable, regardless of their title or position.

As pertains to freedom, a properly operating church allows the Holy Spirit to rule the service. God is a God of order, and thus we may expect a certain order of service. However, when the Lord draws someone to the church for the purpose of ministry to their specific need, the pastor must not quench the Spirit by rigidly adhering to five hymns, four hers and an hour long sermon with four collections. Instead, the pastor ought to allow the Holy Spirit to change the flow of service according to His will, not to the comfort of the pastoral staff.

So how can one tell if one's church is stuck in its ways and refusing to allow the freedom of the Holy Spirit?

If one's service can be expected from Sunday to Sunday regardless of who walks through the doors, one's church may be stuck.

If one sets aside a certain amount of money with a specific bill or check for each collection, one's church may be stuck.

If one finds oneself excited because the annual "Holy Spirit Sunday" is coming ever closer, one's church may be stuck.

Again, the pattern here should be clear for most readers.


This has been the first three of a two part series taken from these seven points. I will post again soon, but until then, I value your feedback. Feel free to share on social media, and pose comments or questions below. I will strive to respond in a timely manner.