Thinking About the Bible, Part Two

Another (incorrect) take on God's Word.

It’s a great textbook on social injustice. This is the view of many who call themselves social activists or “liberation theologians.” One can certainly understand the motivation of these activists who wish to alleviate suffering as well as economic and social injustice. Certainly they do have Biblical data on their side: Just for a few examples of this we might read Isaiah 1:10-17 or Amos 5:21-24. But, unfortunately, this is often the full extent to which these “theologians” put their Bibles to use (prooftexting). Their blend of Marxism and Christianity is neither – though it is usually considerably closer to the former rather than the latter. 

When these activists are using their Bibles as a means to an end, we seldom hear such passages as: Romans 13:1-2 or 1 Peter 2:13-14; or Matthew 28:19-20; or Matthew 5:43-44. Understand that I am not advocating on behalf of sheeplike acceptance of injustice. I have seen the conditions of the people in many third-world countries – and many US ghettoes. I have no pat, well-formulated answers for those things (other than to reference sin, and man’s inhumanity toward man). But the activists simply use Scripture to fit their own perceived needs. They are truncating God’s Word to make it fit their own agendas.  

Eric Schlossberg, author of Idols for Destruction, wrote,                           

Paul Johnson, a former editor of The New Statesman, writes that if the biblical understanding of evil is driven from the field, "then the Chris­tian legitimation of social order, law, and communal self-restraint can­not be maintained very long either." Morality based on individual sentiment means anarchy and the disintegration of society. Humanists cannot have this, and their writings are filled with fervid arguments in favor of a powerful central state. Autonomous man, they find, needs leadership, and strong leadership is the hallmark of humanist society. Whether embodied in a committee or personalized in a leader, the elite dominates. Thus, far from bringing liberation, the anarchy of human­ism brings enslavement. The better educated he is, the more likely the humanist is to believe that people are like machines and need to be pro­grammed, and the more likely he is to believe that he should be one of the programmers. Given their premises, the logic of their position is invin­cible: Gods without power and wealth are an absurd contradiction.

Humanitarianism is saviorhood, an ethic perfectly suited to the the­ology that divinizes man. But the theology that divinizes man, it turns out, only divinizes some men. The objects of humanitarian concern be­come less than men, so that the humanitarian can exercise the preroga­tives of a god.

The god that failed is man.

2 Timothy 3:16 says that ALL Scripture is God-breathed. We can’t simply pick and choose what suits us.

More to come....