Pernicious Pulpits
7 August 2026
I wish to add this addendum to my previous post on power—please look out for part two which should be completed in the next few weeks. This addendum arises because of a recent incident within the family of churches I have been most involved with for the last thirty-three years. A well-established teacher and preacher made some derogatory and patronising comments about members of other faith traditions in what were his, I assume, well-meaning attempts to suggest that Jesus is the only pathway to salvation (a position which fits squarely within traditional Christian thought and is not, in and of itself, innovative).
The audience were largely University students and the backlash was scathing. Several in the audience, and others who saw the recording of the lesson, lodged complaints about how offensive, dehumanising and insensitive the comments were. On the heels of the caustic backlash, the teacher involved recorded a public apology and placed it on his social media page. The reactions to the apology – an apology I considered sincere, contrite and aimed at taking ownership - varied greatly. Some applauded his humility and contrition; others deemed some of the commentary surrounding the apology to be as ill-placed as the original offensive comments; still others considered the apology to be insufficient and were demanding his resignation from the ministry of teaching and preaching; a final crowd, whilst admiring his urgency to put things right as best as he could, interpreted his offensive comments as merely indicative of a much broader conspiracy which remains largely unaddressed across the church network.
Having witnessed both the odious comments and the social media apology and thinking, as always, with my Christ Centred Deconstruction hat on, I find myself predominantly in the final camp. Whilst not unproblematic, the apology was a necessary step, but it could only be the beginning of a healing and learning process which reaches considerably beyond the individual who made the deeply disparaging remarks. I do not wish to react directly to the offender or to what he said. A far more meaningful position in my view is to analyse the broader malady from which such un-Christlike invective emerges and of which such religiously camouflaged vitriol is symptomatic rather than causal. I briefly summarise my thoughts, none of which will sound terribly unfamiliar to followers of this Substack page, under four headings.
1. The Demonisation of Ideas
It is not uncommon for Christian apologists, especially those of a very conservative bent, to create a rather hysterical, defensive, fear-fuelled paranoia about innovative ideas or methodologies perceived to be the beginning of the slippery descent into abandoning genuine Christian convictions. Typically, such commentators will label ideas like postmodernism, critical social theory (be it about race, sexual identity or gender), feminism, some forms of literary criticism, Liberation Theology, Gender Studies, secular philosophy and even psychology as missiles launched from an enemy camp into our churches. Anyone espousing these ideas is, by definition, opposed to Christianity, attempting to dilute Christian resolve, pandering to Liberals and leftists and allowing secular culture with all of its social sensibilities to dictate the thought, free speech, and conviction of Christians.
The inevitable result of this stance is the inhibition of knowledge and the virtual vilification of critical thinking, the marginalisation of certain voices, limitations on understanding of changing social trends, disconnection with young people and the creation of an ‘us and them’ mentality. These are precisely the reasons that the Church is often the slowest learner in the pack and often scrambling to understand the best way to convey the Gospel into new situations. It was the demonisation of certain ideas that caused Christian missionaries to barge into foreign lands with no understanding of local cultures and attempt to enforce Western interpretations of Christianity on non-western people groups. Certain ideas or cultural expressions were considered inferior and in need of a Western upgrade.
There are, to be sure, certain ideas which are, at their roots, clearly incompatible with Christian thought. If someone proposed a fascist form of Christianity or an openly violent form of Christianity (and I dare say there are some who would argue that both of these have unnaturally manifested in certain contexts), they could be easily shown up as aberrant. However, to dismiss ideas like feminism, or critical social theory purely because they sound a bit leftist or are proposed by people with whom Christians might have other ideological disagreements, is narrow minded and could certainly lead to the kind of patronising superiority that, regrettably, resonates from some Christian pulpits.
2. Toxic Masculinity
If there was ever a strong case for why women should be allowed to preach and teach, this would be it!! (PS - I’m not about to wade into that debate here)!! There is no excuse for the Evangelical world not to have learned this lesson by now; between Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, James MacDonald, and a depressingly lengthy list of others of this ilk, we should all have been on notice that attempts to rebrand Jesus as a domineering, masculine thug who loves you so much he would pummel you into submission are flawed and dangerous. This is not a question about one’s position on Western culture wars - it is a question about Christlikeness. If a leadership administration is concerned with ‘winning’, the entire leadership should step down. At the heart of the Gospel is the message that Jesus has already ‘won’ on our behalf. Our role is to implement his victory through the channel of love - it is that simple (at least in theory!!!)! Strong-arming people from the pulpit with bullish rhetoric, no matter how laudable one deems the ends to be, will have two necessarily deleterious effects. Firstly, it will encourage a warped form of discipleship; secondly, it will put unbelievers off the faith. Just as the Apostle Paul discovered in Corinth, the propensity for secular ideas to corrupt faith and liturgy is profound. Paul had to contend with Christian love-feasts which were starting to look like Roman Symposia. It seems to me that the church has another crisis on its hands - Christian manhood is starting to look like the secular ‘manosphere’, and this spells very bad news both for women and for young men who are still in their formative years of faith. As I have argued on a previous post, if there are Christian men who want to be immersed in a competition for masculine honour, they should go into the military, take up competitive sport, or enter the corporate business world. The one thing they should avoid at all costs is going into Christian leadership.
3. The Cult of Personality
It seems to me that there are several (interrelated) reasons why Evangelical churches often seem to attract narcissists to the pulpit. The most pernicious of these is the readiness with which so many confuse charisma with character. Within the family of churches of which I have spent most of my time, confidence, bold and colourful public speaking, ambition and the ability to communicate certainty are routinely mistaken as signs of giftedness for leadership. Couple that with the notion of church growth=success= evidence of divine blessing on the leader, and one has a dangerously deceptive leadership cocktail to contend with. Once leaders occupy this precarious space, it is not uncommon for them to behave in ways that suggest they are beyond criticism, even quoting passages like 1 Chronicles 16:22 and warning people not to touch God’s anointed! These are the kind of environments where to question leadership is paramount to rebellion and is described as anti-unity. Such environments become breeding grounds for abusive praxis and even the most rudimentary form of accountability is treated like disloyalty.
When one surveys the Evangelical landscape, it is positively cringeworthy to see the kinds of people that are often placed in positions of leadership. Increasingly, Christian leaders are better known for being a cross between a CEO and a media personality. Charisma, presence, star quality and an alpha masculine persona are NOT biblical qualities for leadership. Humility, a sacrificial spirit, kindness and a deep-rooted spirituality ARE biblical qualities for leadership. A strong leader is not one who can manufacture compliance, inculcate submission or breed fear in people. It is my suggestion that if Christian congregations became accustomed to placing humble, approachable, kind, gentle people in leadership, people who do not need constant approval or to be surrounded by “yes” men, people who do not have a competitive spirit with other church ministries or treat church growth as the equivalent of company profits, the fabric and culture of Christian communities would change, abuse would become decreasingly likely and churches would reflect a much sharper image of divine love into the world.
4. The Remarriage of Church and State
I think a major problem, and one which is most particularly evident in American Evangelicalism, is the tendency to confuse separation of church and state with the separation of faith and politics. I am strongly in favour of keeping church and state separate and opposed to separating faith and politics. Once more, I recall something I have written in an earlier post. If a society were based, say, on Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount or Paul’s account of Jesus’ humility in incarnation, I think it would be incredibly healthy for human community. However, this is very different from a theocratic state. In my view, the only thing worse than an autocratic, power obsessed head of state, is one who is convinced that his power flows directly from God. A good head of state is one committed to creating a just, fair and prosperous society for all its citizens - not all its Christian citizens. Policy should aim to improve the lives of everyone – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Satanist or Atheist. The law should protect everyone, whether you worship Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Amen-Ra, Poseidon, the flying spaghetti monster or the oak tree in your back garden.
With that said, if I am someone who believes that my ethics are informed by the teachings of Jesus then, by definition, my faith informs my politics. Having Christians in politics should be a very good and positive thing for society, because policy would be based on the very basic Christian principles of loving one’s neighbour, loving one’s enemies and not doing to anyone what you would not have them do to you. Having Christians in politics is NOT profitable on the grounds it might permit Christian politicians to leverage power to benefit those who share our religious ideals. If Christian preaching and teaching starts to sound like partisan political rhetoric, then Christian leaders have ceased to become representatives of Christ.
Concluding Reflections
The situation within my denomination with which I opened this reflection was, in my view, a symptom of a much more pervasive disease which has infected much Christian leadership. The individual involved made a genuine and I believe heartfelt apology; I have neither stake nor say in what that person should do going forward. I have read responses from various people, some insisting that he step down from all leadership, others demanding that he should be shown grace and mercy. I am not sufficiently close to the situation to render an opinion and, frankly, to fixate on this single incident is to miss the significance of the broader interlocking tapestry.
There is a bigger narrative here, which chapter 20 of Christ Centred Deconstruction is aimed at evaluating and that picture has to do with the relationship between leadership and power in Christian communities. A Christian leader is a slave of Christ and not a power broker for him. The only power relevant to the believer is the power of new creation life which our witness of Christlike living ought to engender in any space that we occupy. We are not called to be ‘influencers’ in the media personality sense of the word. We are not called to be ‘winners’ in the American dream sense of the word. Christian men are not called to be ‘masculine’ in the secular manosphere sense of the word. Master Jesus said to us:
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Your light must shine before people in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:14–16).
When Origen of Alexandria contemplated these passages, he compared Jesus to the sun and disciples to the moon and the stars reflecting the light of that sun:
“We understand the Bride or the Church and the disciples to be in a position analogous to the moon and the stars. In both cases, they possess their own particular light acquired from the true sun in order to enlighten those who cannot construct in themselves a source of light”.
The light that we reflect is captured in good deeds which cause people to glorify the God whom we call Creator and Father. If our deeds cause people to question the God to whom we give allegiance, then the light that we shine is not the light of Christ. Those in Christian leadership, who teach others, will be subject to stricter judgement than other believers (James 3:1). It is, thus, incumbent on those who teach to be even more conscious of what they reflect into the world. Whether one intends to or not, the words that come from Christian pulpits shape how people apprehend the Christian faith and, indeed, Jesus himself. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that leadership is not vaunted as the exercise of authority but as the spirituality of humility.
