When the Church Demands a King
What ancient Israel’s rejection of God as king teaches us about ourselves
Whenever a Christian leader’s secret sins are exposed, we focus our attention on the leader and his victims. We want to know what he did, to whom he did it, and why. Next, we turn our attention to the people in authority over the leader (if there were any). We wonder why they didn’t recognize what was happening, or if they did, why they didn’t do anything. Often, that’s where our curiosity ends. We rarely bend our scrutiny back upon ourselves, the church. But we are the people who gave this leader his position. We listened to his sermons, bought his books, and donated to his ministry. We provided the foundation upon which he built his reputation, influence, and, oftentimes, fortune.
If there is anyone who needs to answer difficult questions, it is us. Why does the church flock to people like Bill Hybels, James MacDonald, Ravi Zacharias, Carl Lentz, Mark Driscoll, and countless other lesser lights, who use their positions to bully, assault, steal, and rape? To answer that question, we turn to 1 Samuel.
At the end of Samuel’s life, Israel demanded a king. Up until that time, God had appointed judges to rule the nation, leaders picked when necessary who did not go on to establish monarchies. Perhaps because of the ineptitude of Samuel’s sons, Israel had had enough of judges. They wanted a king like the nations around them.
But there was a problem. Israel already had a king: God himself. Israel wasn’t rejecting Samuel, his sons, or the previous judges. They were rejecting God.
In a surprising move, God met their demand. One might have thought he would have erupted in anger and punished Israel with a plague, a natural disaster, or an invading army. This time, his anger was expressed in a more subtle manner; he understood that providing what they wanted was punishment in itself. He knew that kings would oppress them. Still, being merciful, he warned the nation that this would happen. Kings would draft Israel’s sons into their armies, require laborers for their fields and building projects, and take the best of the land for themselves.
Heedless of the warning, the people persisted, and God chose Saul to be their king, putting in motion a series of events that would result in Israel’s split and eventual deportation to enemy empires.
In a similar fashion, the church is tempted to reject Christ as king, as well as the leaders who meet his requirements, and find for herself leaders who resemble the successful politicians, CEOs, and entertainers in the world around her. When we succumb to this temptation, our leaders begin to look less like Christ and more like pagan “kings”.
Leaders who focus on external threats rather than faithfulness to God
When Israel demanded a king, the people specified an essential job requirement for the incoming monarch, that he would lead them in battle against enemy nations.
Up until this point God had always led Israel in victory using whatever means necessary, less-than-perfect men like Gideon and Samson or more conventional leaders like Deborah. In doing so, he demonstrated his omnipotence to the nation. They didn’t need a king; God was their king, and he authorized his judges to fight Israel’s battles whenever it was needed. Israel’s problem wasn’t their external enemies.
Israel’s problem was the continual temptation to faithlessness, to compromise the law given to Moses and begin worshipping the gods of the surrounding nations. When they gave in to this temptation, they found out God was their only real enemy. God used foreign armies to punish Israel in times of apostasy, but he was equally capable of defeating these enemies when Israel repented.
The godly judges and prophets in Israel prior to the monarchies preached a message of faithfulness to God. After the judges, the godly kings did the same. All three types of leaders (judges, prophets, and kings) served to lead Israel in battle, but the upright among them understood the real battle was for faithfulness in the hearts of the people.
In contrast, ungodly leaders in Christian contexts tend to focus on external threats rather than faithfulness. The enemy is portrayed as posing an existential threat or imperiling Christians’ “way of life”. These leaders appeal to the fear of loss, either of life or freedom, but rather than teaching their followers that God is the ultimate arbiter over such issues, they teach them to fear other people. Gripped by fear, Christians can be tempted to reject God’s appeals to love our enemies, demonizing opponents and occasionally resorting to outright violence.
I am incredibly thankful to live in a country (the United States) which protects its citizens against external threats while also upholding religious liberty. I do not welcome persecution. But should it arise, and the temptation comes to give in to fear and violence, Christ-like leaders will be the ones urging believers to remain faithful to God through their love for others.
Leaders who come in their own authority rather than in submission to a higher authority
In John’s Gospel, Jesus describes himself as one who comes in the Father’s name. In other words, he is authorized by God the Father to speak and act on the Father’s behalf. Jesus didn’t unilaterally decide to become incarnate and die for the sins of the world; God the Father sent him to do so. During Jesus’ incarnation, he appeals to the Father as the higher authority who stands behind his ministry. After his resurrection he makes the claim that all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him. Who gave it to him? God the Father.
In the United States, one can start a church without being authorized, commissioned, or called by a higher ecclesial authority. The government itself acts as the higher authority, authorizing any group to be a church if it meets certain requirements. These churches become 501(c)3 organizations, with the generous benefit of being exempt from taxes. On one hand, this is a positive religious freedom. On the other hand, it leaves the door open for nearly anyone to start a church. The same laws that authorize a relatively reputable denomination like the United Methodists also authorize the Church of Scientology.
What this leads to is the ability for those who come by their own authority, or in their own name, to rule over anyone who chooses to follow them. Or, it gives leaders the ability to change the original church bylaws under which they were called in order to give themselves more power and remove accountability. These are the types of pastors who lead with little to no oversight, sometimes claiming God himself gave them their positions.
Authoritarian leaders appeal to many Christians. Jesus explains it this way:
I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?
In Twilight of Democracy, Anne Applebaum identifies the allure of authoritarianism as a longing for simplicity in a complex world. The world, and often the church, doesn’t want to deal with checks and balances, accountability, and nuance. People want the kind of leader who will cut through the red tape and enforce his will.
The church can be mistaken in believing this is the kind of person Jesus is. We forget his patience, his willingness to forgive, and his divine humility. He could have called legions of angels to save himself from crucifixion and crush his enemies. But he didn’t. Instead, he submitted to the will of the Father. He will return to judge the world, but he will do so in the context of his obedient victory on the cross.
Leaders who entertain rather than make disciples
In almost every narrative that arises around a disgraced leader, his former followers repeat the common lament: “But he was such a gifted communicator.” It is as if the ability to hold people’s attention is the foremost indication of Christ-like character.
Pastors are required to teach, and teaching requires the ability to hold an audience’s attention. But it is not a singular value. In fact, I’m not sure it’s an indication of Christ-likeness at all. One of the apostle Paul’s audience members fell asleep during a sermon. He then fell out of a window, died, and had to be brought back to life. I wonder how many other audience members drifted off during Paul’s preaching without having anything as dramatic happen to them? Paul himself seems to indicate he wasn’t a speaker with a polished rhetorical style.
One of the most captivating speakers I’ve heard is Steven Furtick. Years ago, I pressed play on one of his sermons with the express purpose of listening only to scoff and critique. To my surprise, I enjoyed it and still remember the central theme, especially the repeated catchphrase: “Come up drippin’!” There are only a handful of sermons I specifically remember from a lifetime spent listening to sermons. Furtick’s is one of them.
However, some of the behavior and ministry practices of Furtick are so bizarre, I can’t make a habit of listening to him. He has instructed children to color in an image of him of which the caption reads, “Unity — We are united under the visionary. Elevation Church is built on the vision God gave Pastor Steven. We will protect our unity in supporting his vision.” He has also taught his staff to honor him by standing whenever he enters a room. Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but Furtick lives in a really nice house.
Regardless, Elevation Church, and Elevation Music, of which Furtick has a writing credit on many songs, is thriving. His sermons regularly top the podcast charts and his songs are played daily on the radio and every Sunday in churches around the world.
I can’t pick on him alone. I remember listening to Carl Lentz and seeing the same talent for showmanship. I liked Lentz. I thought he was reaching a demographic of people that needed someone like him. But I can’t pick on Lentz, either. If there’s anything I need to think about, it’s the appeal these men held for me.
The question about Christian leaders in this mold is that as dynamic as they are on the stage, and as abusive as they can be off of it, are they actually making disciples of Christ? People who love and follow Jesus more deeply and closely? Or are they just fun to look at and listen to?
One of the most tragic cases is Ravi Zacharias. He caused irreparable emotional and spiritual damage to the many women he assaulted. Instead of leading these women to Christ, his behavior produced long-lasting confusion regarding Christ’s character. This is what he did off stage. On stage, critics like Steve Baughman have questioned Zacharias’ arguments and presentation, describing his thinking as shallow and reductionist. But on YouTube, there’s plenty of videos showing Zacharias “breaking the internet”, “owning” atheists, and causing his opponents to “instantly regret” questioning him. It’s fun to watch a prize fight. But maybe Zacharias was more Logan Paul than Floyd Mayweather.
Hope for the future
I think the church has a long way to go in understanding and creating systems of accountability for her leaders. The best systems, however, don’t stand a chance against a church who has succumbed to the temptation to reject Christ as king and search out leaders who focus on external threats, rule by their own authority, and amuse her while doing so.
There seems to be some hope. Watchdog organizations, bloggers, and podcasters are shedding light on cases of clergy misconduct and abuse. Exposing the sins of influential Christian leaders encourages us to wrestle with our own complicity in supporting such people.
More hopeful still is that Christ is king whether or not his people accept him as such. Even as the Israelites’ demand for a king led to oppression and exile, it also produced a longing in the hearts of some for the true king to reign once again. Perhaps the current tumult in the church will turn our hearts back to Christ and leaders who truly represent his character.
