When “Bible-Believing Christians Don’t…” Replaces Biblical Discipleship - Holiness Beyond Slogans
- Brent Madaris
- 21 hours ago
- 5 min read
In recent months, social media has seen a growing stream of short, absolute declarations defining what “Bible-believing Christians” do—or more often, what they do not do. These posts are frequent, blunt, and intentionally provocative. Some are doctrinal. Some are practical. Others are deeply personal preferences presented as spiritual litmus tests.
Many readers applaud the boldness. Others push back. Many more are left confused.
What we are witnessing is not simply a debate over standards. It is a method of defining Christian identity that quietly replaces biblical discipleship with slogans—and that deserves careful, biblical correction.
Why This Style Resonates Today
This approach thrives because it offers simplicity in a complex age. Clear lines feel safe. Absolutes feel strong. Short declarations feel authoritative. In an era of uncertainty, people crave someone who sounds sure.
Social media magnifies this appeal. Controversy drives engagement. Reaction fuels reach. Absolutism is rewarded.
But Scripture never equates mere confidence with correctness. Nor does it equate boldness with maturity.
The Core Error: Flattening Biblical Categories
The most serious problem is not that everything said is wrong. Many statements commonly included in these lists reflect genuine biblical truth:
Bible-believing Christians affirm the Trinity.
Bible-believing Christians reject praying to Mary.
Bible-believing Christians uphold biblical order in the church.
The danger arises when biblical doctrine, biblical principles, and interpretive or cultural applications are all collapsed into one category and treated as tests of whether someone “believes the Bible.”
Scripture itself does not operate this way.
A Revealing Example: Creation and Category Confusion
Consider the claim:
“Bible-believing Christians believe that all that there is was created in six literal days (Genesis 1).”
A reader responded that he knew many sincere, Bible-believing Christians who affirm divine creation while differing on the length or structure of the creation days.
The reply was not clarification, but exclusion: if one does not affirm that specific interpretation, then one does not “believe the Bible.”
This exposes the deeper issue.
Disagreement over how Genesis 1 is to be interpreted was treated as denial of "bibilcal" creation itself and even denial of biblical authority. That is a false dilemma. Scripture is infallible; our interpretations are not. In a case like this, when a particular reading of a passage is elevated to a test of whether one “believes the Bible,” the authority of Scripture is quietly replaced with the authority of the interpreter.
This is not a defense of liberalism. It is a defense of proper categories. Let us consider this a bit deeper.
What Scripture Carefully Distinguishes
Biblical Doctrine
Truths essential to the Christian faith:
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).
These define orthodoxy.
Biblical Principles
Moral truths that must be applied with wisdom:
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
The principle binds all believers; the application requires discernment.
Matters of Conscience and Interpretation
Areas where faithful Christians may differ:
“Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”(Romans 14:5).
When interpretive conclusions or cultural applications are elevated to universal commands, legalism replaces discipleship.
When Provocation Becomes the Strategy
At times, these posts even anticipate outrage before making a claim—framing emotional reaction as evidence and disagreement as proof of guilt rather than as an opportunity for biblical reasoning.
At that point, reaction becomes the goal. Correction is pre-judged. Questions are moralized. The conversation shifts from Is this biblical? to Why are you upset?
Scripture explicitly forbids this spirit:
“The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient” (2 Timothy 2:24).
Biblical correction aims at repentance and understanding—not engagement metrics...or worse, flippancy with others and their current spiritual state and maturity level.
The Myth of Revival Through Severity
We are sometimes told that this approach “exposes carnality” and explains why revival never comes. But Scripture consistently links revival not to provocation, but to:
humility
repentance
faithful teaching
patient shepherding
The prophets wept.
Christ mourned.
Paul warned “with tears” (Acts 20:31).
Severity without shepherding/discipling produces fear, not fruit. It also produces "clans" rather than faithful Christians.
The Quiet Damage Being Done
This approach/trend subtly reshapes Christian maturity:
Preferences become proof of faithfulness
Interpretation is confused with inspiration
External markers eclipse heart transformation
Pride disguises itself as boldness
“Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." (Colossians 2:23)
Again,
The Bible is infallible.
Preachers are not.
To affirm biblical inspiration is not to claim infallibility for one’s interpretive conclusions. Confusing the two places an authority on interpretations that Scripture never grants—and binds consciences where God has not bound them.
A Better, Biblical Way Forward
The answer is not compromise, silence, or worldliness—but clarity with care:
Teach doctrine plainly
Apply principles wisely
Distinguish command from conviction
Shepherd consciences patiently
Correct with humility
“Speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).
That phrase is not a cliché. It is a command. We would be wise to heed it!
****** ****** *****
A Specific Word to Pastors and Teachers
People are already defensive, wounded, and confused in an age of constant outrage. Intentionally agitating people (believers/non-believers alike) does not clarify truth—it hardens positions. When ministry is reduced to provocation, the result is not revival but polarization. So the question must be asked: Is this shepherding, or is it scolding? Is this teaching, or is it taunting? Biblical pastors are commanded to be apt to teach, patient, and gentle—not performative, dismissive, or deliberately inflammatory. Severity alone has never produced spiritual maturity.
Some may object, “I shepherd my church, not the public.” But Scripture does not recognize a category where pastors may teach carelessly so long as the audience is undefined. When a man speaks publicly as a pastor—especially in doctrinal absolutes—he is teaching, whether he intends to or not. Social media collapses the distance between pulpit and public square; words offered without context are still words offered with authority. The issue is not whether correction happens within a local church, but whether public declarations reflect the care, patience, and precision Scripture requires of those who teach.
The Church does not need more slogans, more outrage, or more spiritual theater. It needs men who can rightly divide the word of truth and stand firmly upon it—men who can distinguish doctrine from principle, conviction from conscience, and interpretation from inspiration. It needs teachers who correct with meekness (rather than mockery) those who oppose themselves. The church does not need more performers who provoke reactions. Rather, it needs pastors who resist the lure of internet notoriety and who love Christ’s sheep more than they love applause (2 Timothy 2:15, 25–26)
Holiness is not advanced by how sharply we draw lines—but by how faithfully we teach Scripture and live it before men.
Comments