Thanks for taking the time to write. Your hypothetical presents very
interesting and valid points. Let's look at it again: the church is
suffering financially, even though money is coming in. The leader, who
does not have a secular job, has a nice car, nice house and nice bank
account. You say we need to see the "wrong in that and ... not support
it." The "wrong" obviously is not the leader having nice things, but must
be how he or she got them, with the conclusion being that the leader has
either misappropriated church funds or has set up the church for his or her
personal benefit. If there's proof of misconduct, then certainly action
should be taken consistent with church by-laws. However, we must be
careful not to jump to conclusions, which is often the case. The point of
the video is to caution members from speaking on things without an adequate
basis. This happens far too often and it brings the member out of God's
will, causes divisions and confusion, and often leads to disastrous
results. What if there is proof of misconduct at play? Even here, members
must be careful in what they say. Saul was "wrong" for trying to kill
David and for how he was running the nation. Still, David would not speak
against him or raise his sword against him even when he had the chance.
Why? Because David recognized that Saul was still anointed by God as
leader, and he trusted God to handle Saul's iniquity in His timing. David
didn't stay around and support Saul, but neither did he put his mouth or
his hand upon him. There are valuable lessons to be learned in that. - Min. Jeff