A curious trend among some modern Christian movements (progressive, liberal, post-this, emerging-that, etc) you’ll frequently hear liberal “Christians” claim part of the Bible doesn’t apply today, or what Paul meant was really this, or this is an allegory for that — arguing for anything but what the text clearly says. Naturally this causes problems, as who gets to say what the text says, if it doesn’t say what it clearly does?
In the end, you’re left with a designer pick-n-choose religion, not Christianity.
This malady of butchering the text doesn’t occur in normal conversation. Suppose I texted you to an invite for dinner Friday. Would you argue about what did I really mean? Was it really an invitation to a hockey game? Or was it just a cultural idiom?
You’ll laugh at such absurdities, yet that’s exactly what some do to the Bible. When Paul wrote about xyz, he didn’t really mean xyz, he really meant abc. Or this isn’t really in the Bible, but you should believe it anyway.
Bizarre. Tactics of rebellion are these.
You’re free to accept or reject the Bible as you wish, but groups like social justice movements, liberal progressive “Christianity”, and so on (whatever is the latest buzzword) all do the same thing — deny what the Bible says (read that: rebel against God) — using two main tactics:
- That was for another time, the Bible needs to fit in with today’s society so that part doesn’t apply.
- That doesn’t really mean what it says, it’s actually an allegory for…
Using their liberal methods proves Jesus was a Reagan Conservative who despises Democrats — and it’s impossible to prove otherwise. Go ahead, try — you’ll fail.
Reject the Bible as you Wish - just don’t rewrite it.
If you don’t like the Bible, fine. It’s your choice. But you look rather foolish claiming when Paul said one thing (and it’s abundantly clear), he really meant something completely different.
Those “Christians” (and we use the term loosely) live in the deceptive world of The Matrix. Why they choose to call themselves Christian as they reject large swaths of the Bible is a question only they can answer. They may like the name, but they sure don’t like the doctrine.
We’ll note it’s a standard Saul Alinsky method you don’t have to be moral, but you have to cloak yourself in morality for people to buy what you’re shoveling. In other words, you don’t have to be Christian, but you have to appear Christian to trick the church into accepting what you’re peddling — which many times directly contradicts the Bible.
Saul Alinsky dedicated his book (“Rules for Radicals”) to Satan and rebellion, so the question becomes — why do people who claim to be Christian use methods designed to deceive, and dedicated to Satan?
Tactics of rebellion are these.