“Increasingly the younger generation of theologians is being infiltrated by socialism. God’s saving purpose and eternal redemption in Jesus Christ are replaced by human goals of world improvement. These goals are veiled in arbitrarily selected words of the so-called ‘historical Jesus,’ who is interpreted as social reformer or as revolutionary, depending on what the interpreter desires. Preferred texts include the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the discourse on world judgment (Matthew 25:31-46), as well as Jesus’ words regarding the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28). In the last passage the term son of man in verse 28 is taken to simply mean man, which is linguistically possible. Jesus table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (e.g. — Mark 2:15-17) is taken as proof that he changed unjust social structures and that we should imitate him in this.
Characteristic of this approach is the theory of projection. (We might call this ‘social constructs’ — BLM.) The Old Testament is, for the most part, set aside as irrelevant to us because it is, entirely or in part, merely an intellectual construction, a projection. It is the result of then-current patriarchal social structures and conditions. According to this theory, even the ten commandments are no longer normative for us. Jesus is said to have abolished them with the commandment to love. But what love means is not derived from God’s Word, but is rather determined by sensual means.
The prophets are ranked as social reformers. Amos serves as an alibi for this.”
Eta Linnamenn
Historical Criticism of the Bible; Methodology or Ideology? — pg. 92
