A pastor examines the biblical phrase "Touch not my anointed" and rejects two extremes: dismissing it as purely historical, or using it to shield leaders from all criticism. He argues believers should respect God's appointed leaders while still holding them accountable for doctrinal errors and abuse.
Touch not my anointed. Well, what does that mean? Some have taken a look at that particular scripture and said, well, this only applies to a very specific instance in which David did not harm Saul, and therefore this couldn't possibly have anything to do with honoring modern leaders today. Okay, that's false. That's an extreme view. Just because you get hyper-specific with the context doesn't mean that you've completely ruled out the spiritual principle. So the spiritual principle still very much applies in that we ought to honor God's leaders and we ought to hesitate a little bit more than we would with others with God's leaders. On the other side, we have people using this as a shield to hide behind. You can never question them if they're off doctrinally. You just have to accept it. That is also an unhealthy view. Understand that there is a time to call out and question leaders. There is a time to call out and question doctrine. There is a time to alert people to heresy and to abuse. That's all needed, but we have to have balance with it.
