Distorting Scripture to defend or establish a particular position is nothing new. In the New Testament period false teachers and un-spiritual men used twisted Bible interpretations to make their case and gain a footing with others. To the church at Corinth, Paul wrote in part to insure them that he would not "..distort the Word of God..." (2 Corinthians 4:2). Earlier he accused some of peddling the word of God (see 2 Corinthians 2:17), meaning they had sold the truth for a point of view that benefited only them.
This same kind of trickery is played out every day in America, a sleight of hand that preys on our spiritual immaturity and leads some well-intentioned people into groups and sects and cults on the edge of believability. Mountain snake handlers lifted their serpents under a strict interpretation of Mark 16: 17-18, "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all---". Just the same, extreme translations of Isaiah 53:5 promising healing as a outcome of Christ's wounds, and many other verses, are the Scriptural foundations of the so-called health-wealth gospel.
Closer to home, many variant doctrinal statements are based on denominational translations of Scripture that support a particular orthodoxy. Assemble a group of theologians and they'll be able to base their personal leaning on proof-texts, some of them not so far fetched. So line them up---baptismal regeneration, or not; believers baptism by immersion, or not; speaking in tongues as evidence of a second blessing, or not; the passing away of charismatic gifts, or not; taking the Lord's Supper weekly, or not; musical instruments in worship, or not; social drinking, or not; and just about any other doctrinal tenet you'd like to build on a biblical foundation.
Be careful here. Much of the spiritual debate we're engaged in these days is interpretational in nature. Some still argue the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, even after the major skirmishes over the Bible have been concluded. Now, we're trying to biblically justify the beginning and end of the Great Commission, some kind of biblcal support for our funding allocations, ways to define the lengths and breadth of Kingdom assignments, where the mission field actually begins, and the ways our structure fits into the Kingdom picture. Most of us have our biblical justifications close at hand. We can defend just about any position if we want to manipulate Scripture. I remember how we all used to laugh when evangelist Junior Hill would preach that he was over-weight because the Bible said that we should "buffet" our body.
Ramp it up notch! Most of our positioning isn't based on accurate interpretation anyway. Usually we make our stand on personal preferences. Ouch! But, true. Backing up values, beliefs, crew, or lifestyle choices with Scripture is just a cheap way to justify ourselves, make us feel better about what we're doing, or maybe, not doing. Knowing that just about any doctrinal tenet can be supported by twisting Scripture one way or another is just child's play with the Word. It's a spiritual and pseudo-holy way of saying, "he made me do it". Let's just blame our poor choices on God or His Word.
These are serious times. If our stance on Scripture means anything, we'd best use prayerful discernment when selecting Scripture as the foundation of our mission and ministry preferences. Else, we'll be making "Enter His courts with praise..." a basketball slogan.
What?