Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

When I think about many of the Christian leaders I once looked up to, I wonder how many of them are feeling a lot of cognitive dissonance these days.

In my seminary and early church planting days, I was taught a model of cultural engagement that emphasised non-offensiveness as a ministry non-negotiable.

As I implemented this methodology in my ministry, I found it wholly inadequate for the challenges of real ministry. So I rejected that approach. It took me several years to fully deprogram my ministry instincts and retrain myself to be more bold and outspoken.

Then I think of men like Charlie Kirk. He didn’t go to college or seminary. He didn’t build a platform by adopting the tactics of the credentialed experts. He built his platform with guts and grit.

Lukewarm Leaders

If Charlie Kirk had gone to a typical seminary, he likely would have lost his edge. He would have learned to be more careful. He would have learned to be more measured. He would have had his prophetic voice educated right out of him. He may have ended up as just another celebrated academic, publishing white papers at ETS, and speaking on the lecture circuit.

I’m not against those things. My point is that our institutions produce academics when the need of the hour is more prophets.

We need men of courage and conviction these days, but the evangelical leadership that shaped the last generation of pastors trained men to bury their courage. How many men go to seminary and graduate more on fire for Christ?

That’s why I think many older Christian leaders are feeling cognitive dissonance these days. The man who arguably had the greatest Gospel impact in a generation did not go through their credentialing process, and did the opposite of what they would have trained him to do.

How do you make sense of that?

A Voice Cries Out

And then, I’m disturbed by this thought: how many young men have had their wings clipped by the credentialed class who told them, “You can’t offend people if you want to be effective in ministry”?

How many men sought training for ministry only to have the leaders they respected train the zeal right out of them?

Kirk’s death has awakened the consciences of a generation of young men. They admire his courage, boldness, clarity and zeal. In the aftermath of Kirk’s death, many of these young men are looking for leaders who can sharpen them and direct their zeal.

Who do they have to look to?

Kirk’s bold voice, testimony to the Gospel, massive appeal, and effective platform are a rebuke to the credential class who would have advised him to tone it down so he could play the long game and have a nice career.

Don’t get me wrong — there are still some very courageous voices out there, but many of them are speaking from outside the system, because their bold voice is a threat to the status quo.

Going forward, the status quo is not gonna cut it. Everyone senses it. The way forward is more voices in the mould of Charlie Kirk, but the bench is pretty thin of men who can train the next generation of Charlie Kirks.

I find it ironic that God used Charlie Kirk, who did the opposite of everything Christian leaders are taught to do, and ended up building a ministry platform that produced the largest single Gospel preaching event in human history.

“God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise.”
— 1 Cor 1:27

___

Republished thanks to Michael Clary. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.