Rebel vs. Freethinker
“The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.”
- Harper Lee, To Kill A Mockingbird
Across many domains, we admire historical figures who were ahead of their time. Many Christians admire biblical figures such as Jesus and the Apostle Paul and relish the idea of being set apart from the world. There are Christian movements that promote being like Joseph in the book of Genesis or a Proverbs 31 woman, prototypes of exemplary men and women who are set apart from this fallen world. They may be considered nonconformists or trailblazers for their time.
The institutionalized church at large, however, is much slower to appreciate those who challenge tradition within Christendom, often labeling them instead as heretics, false prophets, apostates, or rebels.
I want to focus specifically on the word “rebel” here, as its usage carries an especially interesting connotation.
Among Christians, the word “rebel” often conjures the image of Lucifer, who rebelled against God and turned one third of the angels against Heaven.
“Rebel” also tends to suggest someone who childishly opposes authority for no reason other than defiance, like a truant teenager who gets into trouble merely to spite parents or teachers.
When someone holds views that don’t align with traditional doctrine, “rebel” is a convenient term to invalidate their views.
This is because if a person is a “rebel,” at least understood in the Christian context, then this implies that their motive is to subvert what is upright, orderly, and honorable—and that kind of person is dangerous, untrustworthy, even demonic.
Yet one major oversight of the institutionalized church is this: If any perspective that deviates from traditional doctrine is considered heretical in nature, then there is no room for real expansion or evolution within Christian discourse. And then they are essentially operating like a cult.
To this point, many Christians would argue that, “There is no need to ‘add’ more to the Bible because the Word of God is infallible and unchanging,” but what they fail to recognize is that much of Scripture is subject to interpretation as well. So their argument is not so much Scripture itself but their interpretation of Scripture, which is often based on traditional views of the institutionalized church that have just been accepted as truth. This is one of the pitfalls of shutting down alternative perspectives due to surface-level impressions of being “heretical.”
Another thing I hear many Christians say when it comes to someone who has alternative views on Christianity is, “They are trying to create a false religion/church” citing verses like 2 Peter 2:1: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
I will say that there are indeed some Christian sects that are extremely far-removed from the tenants of the Bible. For example, “Christian” organizations that promote men to have multiple wives, overt lasciviousness, or anything that is obviously antithetical to the values of true Christianity.
Another manifestation of this are churches or movements that say they are about the “kingdom of God” or “relationship with Jesus” instead of religion, yet in actuality are using these terms to cover-up their disregard for sanctification and lust for lawlessness. Using discernment is key since some people express these sort of sentiments from a pure, sincere place.
However, this doesn’t mean that any and all unorthodox Christian spaces are unethical, perverse, and “rebellious.” This is where critical thinking, an open mind and, again, discernment needs to come into play.
Furthermore, many Christian churches of today are extremely corrupt even though they do follow traditional dogma, what may be considered “kosher” by Christian standards.
So it is important to understand that, just as there are corrupt non-traditional spaces, there are also corrupt traditional spaces within Christiandom.
Labeling all non-traditional Christian perspectives as heretics can obscure the fact that some of these individuals are more closely aligned with the true ecclesia as their soul is more free from the shackles of the matrix system.
This phenomenon, in which truth is often mistaken for falsehood and falsehood for truth, is at the heart of my frustration with the institutionalized church. Not to mention that with modern technology, archaeological discoveries, and the influx of higher consciousness into the collective, our understanding of the Bible and spiritual truths is continuously growing and expanding. Therefore, though the character of God is eternal and unchanging, consciousness around Christianity does not need to remain static.
In addition, the misrepresentation and stereotyping of Christian freethinkers as simply rebellious heretics who want to “go their own way” undermines the natural inquisitiveness of a contemplative man or woman, a curiosity that is divinely implanted by God Himself. A distinction thus must be made between those who deviate from traditional views for self-serving reasons and those who do so because they are concerned with understanding truth and the welfare of others.
