‘It is easy to associate oneself with the collective by deferring to the bureaucracy of “collective responsibility”: “Ours is a good church. We preach the word. We go out to evangelize. We have ministries for this or that”, even though the people in each church who actually are responsible for those actions are a very small minority. That does not stop the collective from taking credit for the actions of the few. It is much more difficult to associate oneself with God by taking up the personal responsibility to love Him and their neighbor, leading by example and service, and encouraging others to do the same.

For these reasons, it is difficult to say that there is such a thing as a “good church”. The sin of Corban is characterized by a system that produces bad fruit even if it looks like a good tree. It hardens the hearts of men, makes them slothful, and it centralizes the salty brightness of individual responsibility to a bureaucratic polity of dead religion and lip-service, thereby enslaving the laity who have willingly sold their birthright and legacy for a bowl of liturgical novelties.

The Gospel of the Kingdom necessarily and thoroughly confronts the sin of Corban. This is not new information. Jesus Christ traveled preaching about “the whole of the law” to address the apathy of people who took his name in vain and to confront the roots of that apathy. He desires a called-out body politic of believers, over which he is the head. The alternative “nullifies the word of God”. It may be comfortable, but it goes with the multitude to do not much of anything. Which is evil.’