I have been religiously avoiding the topic of religion on my blog for a bit. I haven't been going to church consistently, not because I've started to doubt the existence of a God but more because I haven't found a church I'm comfortable in again. Like I said, I hate the church system in Hope where it's so methodical, you stay long enough, do and say the right things and you'll be a leader. Once you've graduated, you move on up to the next "family" where you're expected to be close and bond simply out of convenience. Honestly, I think this is why so many people leave. While church was about God and not men, church was never meant to be about hierarchy and power. Me, I've had a lovely time at Hope, it's just that I don't know the new strangers there and many of my old friends have left or moved up. I'm not discontent, just uncomfortable.

I refuse to respect and pay heed to every word a leader tells me simply because this is the person appointed to me. Whilst I know that this is wrong and that the bible tells us that everybody that comes to power, God has let him. And that we should still obey the laws set by our leaders. I can not force myself to blindly follow. What if we stretch the story a little; say a leader that has been allowed to come to power orders everyone to cheat, to steal and to murder. You can't break the law that you must obey your leader yet you can't break the commandments that say doing these things are wrong. Everyone of us perceive certain things to be right or wrong and then lead our lives in accordance to our perceived morals. But different people have different perspectives and perceive different things to be right or wrong. likewise, a leader and a student may have different perceptions on morals. I therefore believe in choosing my own leaders. You follow people who have the same perspective as you in what is right. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to other sides and keep an open mind. I'm just saying it is natural of us to choose leaders that think in the same ways as us.

Who decides who a leader should be. And who decides on who should decide. I believe that if you earnestly seek, you will receive an answer. But that is fine and dandy only if it applies to things personal. If it involves a body of people, then who decides on where to draw the line. If two people say God has spoken to them and has revealed to them who to appoint as leader, who do we listen to. When there is disagreement there is discontent. This is where compromise comes into play. Someone has to give in and a decision will be made. But human compromise is imperfect and flawed. What if we are wrong. Then God's true voice will be neglected. We then go back to the dilemma of what God's true voice is. But it's irony at it's greatest because the whole dilemma is about who decides what God's true voice is. Someone has to be appointed by man to make these decisions and by that first appointment, we could have made a mistake because we are flawed.

Having said this, I do not think the bible was a compromise because we are not currently writing the bible. We are making decisions in this day and age where the skies don't part to rain forth manna and rocks don't split let forth a river of water. It is getting increasingly hard to hear God's voice much less convince people we aren't hallucinating.

This is why I refuse to blindly obey the people appointed to me. A friend of mine then warned me that I shouldn't let my discernment lead to rebellion. But we all rebel against what we think is wrong. If you're not for it you're against it. Rebellion is not always bad and obedience is not always good. It solely depends on your cause and morals. Obedience to God is always good, and I am far from perfect. But men aren't God and leaders are men. I'd like to choose my own leaders.

Respect is to be earned, not blindly given.

'jol