Many may describe last week's column as a little direct, rough, and probably cynical. There are two pretty strong objections that can be raised to what I have had to say, and both of them deserve to be answered. One is philosophical and the other is far more personal. Many might refuse to deal with the personal objection, but this space is pretty personal so I think it is fair game. Let's consider each in turn.

A radio talk show host that I generally respect a great deal is fond of saying that we should not "let the best become the enemy of the better." Placed into my circumstance that would mean that while many in the church haven’t really plumbed the depths of Christian commitment -- at least they are in church. If the church has to soften the message a little to get them there, isn’t that better than having them out there without any Christian understanding at all? Using the language I defined last week, it could be summed up by saying, "Isn't being religious better than nothing, even if it doesn’t lead to being faithful?"

Certainly in terms of ordering society, being religious is better than nothing. If the goal is to make people "behave" better, show better values, generally be better citizens, then absolutely having people participate in the life of a church is far better than not. But is that the goal? Quite frankly, I don't think so, which is what I have been trying to say all along.

There are two very different perspectives at play here. In one case, religion, Christianity is about the here and now. In the other case, faith, Christianity is about eternity and heaven and here and now. It is the very fact that these perspectives are hard to distinguish that the real issue arises. You see, someone who is religious will look and behave very much like someone who is faithful. Only God knows about eternal life outcomes for either of these people, so the here and now is all we have to go by, so it is very easy to confuse the religious with the faithful, and assume one is on the road to the other.

And yet, almost universally, the words of condemnation that Christ had were reserved for the leading religious figures. One has to ask why? I think for one very simple reason, putting on the form of religion, precisely because it looks so much like faith, allows us to fool ourselves into thinking we are doing "OK." Thus in this case the so-called "better," that is practicing religion, can actually be an impediment to discovering true faith, which is the "best."

Thus, it is extremely important to be critical of the church, or religion. If in fact, religiosity is, or at least can be, an obstacle to genuine Christian faith, then every energy and effort must be spent on overcoming that obstacle because there is no less at stake than the eternal soul of all involved.

As last week, the question arises, "Why not just dispense with the church?" I cited some reasons last week, but let me cite two more here. First of all, the church is just a group of people, and the Gospel says that people can be redeemed, so therefore, the church can be redeemed as well. God is in the re-creation business, not the condemnation business. The road to re-creation starts at the recognition of its necessity, and thus I must make the criticisms of the church. Without change those criticisms will become condemnations, but that is not my decision.

Secondly, if I left the church altogether and tried to gather only "true believers" around me, in the end I would just make my own church, and in the end it would just end up with the same corruption of which I accuse the existing church. Remember all the parachurch organizations that have sprung up over the last years. Most of them are already as corrupt as the church. I have already shared my experience in one of them, and mine is a minor story.

No, better to be God's instrument of reform than create another place where reform will become needed.

The personal objection would really be more of a personal attack. I have admitted here to having been fired from a ministry and some could say, "John just says all that stuff because he got kicked out and he has to justify it somehow, instead of facing up to his own issues." A little ugly, but I think it is fair. It is a big step to publish, even to the limited audience this web space is currently reaching, the kinds of accusations I am making about the church and the professionals that work in it. I need to work to make sure I am saying things that are important and meaningful, not just spilling bile. So, I have asked this question of myself, and would not be surprised if someone out there thought it, even if they haven’t asked it.

For starters, I have spent an enormous amount of time in the last 21 years "facing up to my own issues." There has been counseling and prayer, tears and joy. One of the individuals involved has sought my forgiveness, and I have done my best to grant it -- prayerfully and with God's grace I can do more to grant it. I made mistakes, and I have faced them.

The biggest mistake I made was to be presumptive enough to tell God that He had called me to that professional ministry. He most assuredly had not, and my salvation lay in discovering what He did have in mind for me. And this is the first place that the accusation that I am trying to justify "my failure" breaks down. That accusation assumes that I still wish I was in ministry, and I do not. I sometimes still wish for the spotlight. I dearly love public speaking and I crave more opportunities to do it. But those are different desires than wanting to be in professional ministry, very different indeed.

But at the same time I have worked to come to understand my mistakes, the mistakes of those on the other side have become more visible too. I have gained knowledge not only of myself, but of those around me, and that knowledge is worth sharing.

If I was seeking to "justify my failures," I also think my efforts would be more towards condemnation, not re-creation. Ever have a romantic relationship where there is an argument over who broke up with whom? "You can't reject me, I rejected you first." That is the tone I believe I would have if I were trying to justify my dismissal from Young Life. I don’t think I have that tone.

"But John, didn’t you say just last week that maybe we need to leave the church to its fate?" Well, yes, but look at all of what I said. I said that maybe the Holy Spirit has work to do before the faithful can really take hold in the church. Is that condemnation? NAY! That is recognizing what I can do, and leaving to God what He must do.

I speak not out of condemnation, but out of sorrow. In 1991 I was in the Soviet Union. If you do not know it, the Kremlin, in addition to being the seat of government, also has within its walls several churches of ancient origin. And of course there is St. Basil's, immediately outside the Kremlin in Red Square. During the Soviet era these houses of worship were turned into museums. They were completely devoid of any religious practice. It made me weep. Something so beautiful had been created in the name of God, and when I was there it was used solely as a tourist attraction to raise hard currency for the corrupt regime.

That is how I feel about our religious institutions that seem to have lost their way. I weep. I do not wish to condemn them, I wish to see them do that for which they were created. I point out their errors only to help them see the correct path.