Religious ends being used to justify immoral means

In Acts 23:12-22, Paul is imprisoned in Jerusalem, when a group of over 40 young men take an oath not to eat until they have killed him. They plan to request him to be taken for an audience at the Sanhedrin, and to ambush it en route. Paul's nephew hears of the plot, tips off the military commander, and Paul is extricated at night to Caesarea to foil their plot.

I suspect most or all of those young men returned to their normal diet, and none of them kept their oath until they starved to death.

In the Western world, over the past 5 or so years, there have been many tragic stories that have become public of narcissistic church leaders bullying and domineering their flocks as a way to build a personal empire. Sadly, I'm sure there will be many other similar stories that have remained private, and where this still goes on. We justify controlling and manipulative means because the greater-end of advancing the gospel is being pursued. This does not work, and we need to do Jesus’ work in Jesus’ ways (to quote Mark Stirling, director of the Chalmers Institute, speaking to a group of ministers I was in).

One of the motifs in Acts 20-28 is demonstrating the integrity of the apostle Paul, including his moral integrity. The things he was accused of were being done by his accusers, but not by Paul himself.

But how is it that church leaders think that immoral behaviour becomes justified just because it pursues a religious end?

David Gooding comments on that story in Acts 23:

“The army commander was soon to discover, if he did not know it before, that religion does not always feel itself obliged to follow strict morality in the way that ordinary morals are supposed to do. When it wishes do defend itself or destroy an enemy, it can persuade itself that the defence of truth justifies dispensing with morality altogether.” (David Gooding, True to the Faith, page 384 {1990 edition})

Quite so, so we all need to beware how easily we slip into that attitude.