Diverted Christianity: What 9/11 Teaches Us About Church Leadership
- Bob Russell
- Sep 27
- 5 min read
Collateral Damages From A Diverted Divine Purpose
Introduction
Most Americans recall one the greatest national disasters that ever occurred on American soil on September 11, 2001. Two flights were diverted mid-flight from their destination and instead were diverted to New York City. These diversions not only destroyed all passengers that were aboard the flights but added a large number of deaths and destruction when they slammed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. The hostile takeover of both flights, the removal of the rightful pilots and replacement with organized terrorist resulted in the diverting of the airplanes — turning them into weapons of destruction.
The diversion of church leadership has been a subject of considerable discussion and analysis within religious and academic circles. This phenomenon refers to the shifts, deviations, or changes in the roles, teachings, responsibilities, and influence of church leaders over time. Understanding this topic requires examining historical contexts, contemporary challenges, and the implications for religious communities. Like the diverted flights on 911, when the rightful God-chosen leadership of His churches are removed or cancelled, then replaced by those of high charisma but nefarious purposes, the results — like the diverted flights — not only endanger the churches and their members but extends to the unbelieving general public as well.
Historical Context of Church Leadership
Historically, church leadership was primarily centered around spiritual guidance, doctrinal authority, and community cohesion. Leaders such as bishops, priests, and pastors held considerable influence over their congregations, often acting as moral authorities and mediators between the divine and the laypeople (Smith, 2010). Over centuries, however, the structure and function of church leadership have evolved, influenced by political, wealth accumulation, social, and cultural changes.
Jesus taught his followers to abstain from worldly actions and attitudes (1 John 2:15–17; 2 Corinthians 6:17; John 17:6–26; John 15:19; Romans 12:2; James 4:4), yet today we find a segment of the church becoming more entangled in politics, social engineering, race-based politics, and advocating for social warfare and takeover. How can these things be happening given the clear teachings of the bible?
Factors Contributing to the Diversion
Secularization: As societies became more secular, the influence of religious institutions waned, leading to a shift in leadership focus from spiritual to administrative or social roles (Johnson, 2015).
Modernization and Technological Advances: The advent of digital communication and social media has transformed how church leaders engage with their communities, sometimes diverting from traditional roles to more media-centric leadership (Williams, 2018).
Scandals and Ethical Challenges: Instances of misconduct and scandals have led to a crisis of trust, prompting a reevaluation and sometimes a diversion of leadership priorities towards transparency and accountability (Brown, 2019).
Implications of Leadership Diversion
The diversion of church leadership can have both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, it can lead to more inclusive, transparent, and community-oriented leadership models. Conversely, it may also result in a loss of doctrinal authority, diminished spiritual guidance, and internal conflicts within religious communities (Davis, 2020). These positive things are associated with testimonies against historical tendencies such as colonialism, displacing Indigenous peoples, slavery, and seeking economic dominance of the world’s economies. For a growing number of church leaders here in America, dominance is simply a matter of manifest destiny, nationalistic pride, and a hidden fear of a false theory called “The Great Replacement Theory.” I will not digress to define the theory; the reader may do their own research — if they desire.
Some church leaders acknowledge these dangerous practices of the past (and present) and attempt to teach mercy, goodwill, love of the stranger, and a need for change to the human heart. However, others continue to see such practices as preferential and right due to an opinion that those not of their race are simply inferior people — and worse, like they are doing oppressed people a favor. We should be thunderstruck with how such opposite and diverging views can come from one bible, one Jesus, and his gospel teaching? The churches are being diverted from being separated from the world to becoming a main driver in worldly affairs, seeking a temporary kingdom on earth or a particular nation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the diversion of church leadership reflects broader societal changes and internal challenges faced by religious institutions. While it can foster adaptation and growth during periods of great wrong and sinfulness, it also poses risks to the core spiritual and moral functions of the church. I do not use the contrast of the World Trade Center disaster lightly, and I do not want to increase the despair of those who have lost loved ones and feel the pain from that event. The event was visceral and shocking! But the spiritual diversion of the leadership of Christ’s church — while just as dangerous and deadly — produces little visceral grief and goes unnoticed, save for the spiritually moral and sensitive believers, and builds resentments and causes for hating the gospel because of its messengers — the church.
There are those within the churches who believe they must listen and obey every word spoken by a church leader or someone claiming to be an apostle or prophet. Not only is this false teaching — but such obedience is conditional (1 Timothy 5:19–20, Acts 5:29; Matthew 18:15–17). No true believer is forced to obey a church leader if they speak lies, stir up controversy, hate, malice, or brag about wealth. Or preaches a doctrine inconsistent with the bible or lives an inconsistent life. While always willing to forgive and restore fellowship — provided they repent and stop their sinful behavior — there is no obligation to restore them to leadership. Humility is a sign of godliness, and the right of leadership is determined by scripture, building of trust over time, and willingness to be disciplined and under the watch of a mature believer.
Ultimately, they may earn trust after their lives and their words show proper discernment and consistency — but the churches should never be quick to lay hands of total acceptance as a leader on anyone (1 Timothy 5:220). Now, we are in an era of the rise of false prophets (Matthew 7:15–20; Matthew 24:24; Jeremiah 23:16; 2 Peter 2:1–3), choosing and approving leaders in the churches is now more critical than ever! Truth is far more precious than ever, and every true believer must learn to guard their ears and eyes from heresy and hole those they consider spiritual leaders to account for their words and their deeds.
References:
Brown, T. (2019). Ethical Challenges in Modern Religious Leadership. Journal of Religious Studies, 45(2), 123–135.
Davis, R. (2020). Leadership and Change in Religious Institutions. Religious Leadership Review, 12(4), 45–60.
Johnson, L. (2015). Secularization and Its Impact on Church Authority. Sociology of Religion, 76(3), 289–305.
Smith, J. (2010). Historical Perspectives on Church Leadership. Church History Journal, 22(1), 50–65.
Williams, M. (2018). Technology and Religious Leadership. Journal of Digital Religion, 3(1), 10–25.
Comments