Christians Who Rewrite the Bible in Their Own Image

One of my favorite columnists, Dr. Mike Adams, has a good piece today on why he left the United Methodist denomination.

(Before I go any farther, I want to make it clear that I don't like to bash particular denominations and as a rule I don't do it--as long as they are ostensibly Christian denominations as opposed to a cult or some group masquerading as "Christian." Rather, error and heresy anywhere in the Church universal needs to be pointed out; we Christians should be our own best police. If error is more often found in some denominations than others, then those denominations have chosen to place themselves in the way of criticism. At the same time I recognize there remain some good people even in some of the most rotted denominations in America today, so I don't say that all xxxxx-ists are in error, but sometimes it may be proper to say that the xxxxx-ist denomination as a whole is in error on a particular point because the leadership or dominant portion of that member body is in error. For the record, there are people within my denomination who are in error on some of these same points mentioned below, but they are not in the majority nor are they leading the denomination in these affirmations. I have many friends in denominations other than my own, and many people from various denominations support Dakota Voice--because we all believe in the truth of the Scriptures, regardless of our denominational affiliation, and don't try to rewrite the Bible or put words in God's mouth.)

Having explained (for anyone rational enough to listen and comprehend it) my position on denominational criticism, Adams points out one of the most foundational of heresies:

2. A Methodist preacher makes the statement "We don't like to talk about sin here at (deleted) United Methodist Church." Instead, he likes to talk about "grace." If there is no sin and there is no hell, what was Jesus saving people from? Does silence on the issue of "hell" and "sin" render the term "grace" completely meaningless?

And another point, illustrating what Adams says about some "Christian" groups having a problem acknowledging sexual sin:

4. A church employee becomes pregnant out of wedlock. In the presence of less than five year old Sunday school students she talks about how the father of her child is going to move in with her. Is that really appropriate in front of the little ones? Would it be too "offensive" to talk to her about legitimating the child through an institution called "marriage"?

A point from Adams relevant to our current and ongoing discussion in South Dakota about abortion (and particularly relevant to that scandalous bunch that during the election called themselves by the laughable name "Pastors for Moral Choices"):

6. A United Methodist preacher supports John Kerry for President. She says this is because she opposes war and the killing of innocent children. Is she aware that Kerry thinks life begins at conception but supports abortion anyway? That means he supports 4000 intentional murders in the name of "choice" every day in America. How many children are killed on purpose by U.S. troops every day? Is it less than 4000? Is it time for the Methodists to start talking about abortion?

And another in the same vein of consideration for the "Pastors for Moral Choices:"

9. A United Methodist youth minister circulated a petition supporting gay marriage on the internet. Her pastor does not want the youth leaders talking about creationism because it is too controversial. Why the double-standard

?

Finally, Adams gets to a point of truth which is accurate for any denomination (or church, for that matter) that takes positions similar to the ones Adams has cited:

10. A man gives his testimonial in a United Methodist Church. He says that he likes the church because no one talks about sin and it makes church fun. He says he isn't a religious person. He's only a spiritual person. Why is the preacher seated behind him nodding vigorously in approval? Is the United Methodist Church still a religion? Or is it just whatever you would like it to be?

If a "church" won't stand behind the clear teachings of right and wrong inherent to Christianity, then it doesn't deserve to call itself a "Christian" church. It can call itself the "Happy Hour Church" or whatever, but it doesn't deserve to call itself "Christian" if it disregards or even opposes the teaching of Christ and His Book.

Calling such institutions "Christian" is false advertising at best, and damnable heresy at heart.