BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Baptist Anesthetized Christians

My heart breaks everytime I hear of spiritual leaders intentionally or unintentionally abusing their authority. The Bible is clear that Christ is the Head of the Church. Yet, in our local churches we almost deify our leaders as if their words, opinions, and desires are co-equal if not superior to the Word of God. Hebrews 13:17 commands us to obey our spiritual leaders, but if our spiritual leaders lead outside the Will of God then obedience to God not man is what demands our allegiance. I am deeply concerned with how we justify, excuse, or ignore bad behavior of our leaders (at least until it reaches the media). Pastors who support other pastors even when there is concrete evidence that they are wrong sends mixed messages about Christian ethics to the world and the church. Not to mention, there are some who believe that it is a sin to ask questions, confront, or bring up issues that require Biblical correction to a pastor. The Word of God applies to all Christians not just to those who are submitted to Christian leadership (Romans 15:14). That's why I believe that anesthesia is being pumped into some of our congregations leaving well-intentioned Believers numb and vulnerable to the lies, manipulated Scripture, and hypnotic lure of flamboyant sermonic performances that cause divison and a kind of "love" that does not come from Christ.

Are facts debatable? I just had a conversation with a fellow brother who insists that we should "debate the facts." While I agree that facts have little relevance outside a given context, it seems to me that the debate is really about the context in which the facts are placed. Isn't this is how lawyers make their money -- by putting facts in a particular context? But, why are we debating the facts of the Bible though? If the Bible is the Word of God, where's the debate? Is this culture really concerned about truth, anyway? Recently, a whole group of people about denied/excused/justified/ignored documented and testimonial proof about a particular situation that affected them on one hand; and, on the other hand, dismissed a situation that involved long time friends without any proof documented or otherwise. How is it possible to "debate the facts" if the standard is constantly shifting as to what is debatable: concrete evidence means nothing, the word of one person means everything, "I need to see proof", "Your documents mean nothing to me," "Well that's my opinion," "It's open to interpretation." What is going on ?!