When I was in seminary nearly all of my friends were post-tribbers. When I was teaching in a seminary, nearly all of the Faculty were post-tribbers, or at least they weren’t pre-tribbers. Those aren’t scientific polls obviously, but I was not alone in thinking that the dispensational pre-trib days were behind us and that we were poised to study and teach the Book of Revelation and eschatology from new angles.
But something happened. Pre-tribbing is as much “in” today as it was in the 60s and 70s when it seemed to hit an all-time high.
A common admission I heard from pastors who graduated post-trib only to find themselves alone — and stared at as if to say “Young man, that’s not what we believe!” — was that they didn’t want to lose their job or it wasn’t worth the fight or everyone in the pew has been captured by the pre-trib vision.
And, yet, there are very few scholarly studies today on Revelation or on eschatology that comprehensively argue for that pre-trib view. In fact, the most important scholarly studies, including stuff by Bauckham and others, are advocating more historicist if not preterist-feeding perspectives.
So, two questions: What happened or what does it take for pastors to undo the view that few of them hold?
And, Are we poised for a new shift in how we read eschatology and teach eschatology?
Those who know how to capture the imagination of common people have the more popular theology. This is one reason I am glad you can write on a popular level, unlike many scholars.
“What happened”?
Is it largely because scholars don’t really write/teach for the church as much anymore (specialization) … and so the the church consumes the “hot” books/teachers that do teach at a popular level? Also, what little reading the average church member does of things written by scholars is increasingly crowded out by all of the media-savvy ways the non-scholarly teachers get their message to the pews (e.g., internet, DVD, podcasts, etc). This also relates perhaps to an increasing kind of illiteracy among church members (or at least distaste for reading actual books).
So, non-pre-trib pastors face a situation where church members are increasingly being taught from a dizzying array of well-packaged pre-trib teachers.
“what does it take”?
Perhaps pastors can forge strong bonds of relationship, love, and trust with parishioners. In a kind of teeter-totter fashion, such deep relational bonds may tip people over to trusting the pastor’s non-pre-trib teaching more than what the popular radio or internet teachers says.
“Young man, that’s not what we believe!” — was that they didn’t want to lose their job or it wasn’t worth the fight”
It concerns me that some see certain views of this topic, apart from the Preterist issue, as such an essential.
I agree with Jason, to an extent. American Christians have “fad addiction”. The search is no longer for God’s truth; it’s for what’s “in” or “hot” at the moment. Therefore, we have a short attention span for truth and for things that last.
This is what happens when popular works of fiction shape people’s eschatology more than Scripture, we do need more scholars who will feel called to write at the more general level as well as the academic
Living in the shadow of an institution founded and developed by Scofield and Ryrie, I certainly see many with the pre-trib perspective. Interestingly, fewer and fewer students from that school would have that point of view, if they have any perspective at all on the issue. However, among the typical church goer, I don’t think that a large majority of the church could argue against a post-trib perspective as they get most of their theologic understanding of eschatology from pop fiction.
@Derek #1 is probably right about the need for more non-pre-trib publishing on a popular level, but really that isn’t going to make our church members better at being followers of Christ. It will just re-indoctrinate them into a different POV. I would rather refocus them on the more important matters of faith like love that bring mercy and justice to the world with anticipation that their is an end coming.
deets (6):
but doesn’t our belief system (in this case eschatology) in some ways affect the way we “love that bring mercy and justice to the world”?
Maybe when pastors (and others) are convinced of the arguments in favor of a post-trib view they will be more willing to embrace and communicate it. Until they feel confident in this approach they will have a tendency to move with other, more ‘popular’ options.
Dr. McKnight,
I blogged about this topic for a year and a half. I am waiting for Jay Phelan’s book on the topic to come out.
I agree with the DVD “The Late Great Planet Church” that dispensational pretrib is a theology built on eschatology. Dispensationalist pastors tend to preach on the epistles, Revelation and Daniel. They tend to have a simplistic view of law and grace also.
I have humorous links on that blog to “How to Write a Rapture Book” and “The Rapture Song”. If people need a novel for eschatology other than Jenkins/LaHaye’s left behind series or Hal Linsey’s Late Great, they can read “A Journey to Eschatology” by Richard P. Belcher which is also reviewed on Millennial Dreams blog linked to my name above.
What’s my viewpoint? Amil, but a tentative amil. Waiting to read Phelan’s book.
Post-trib material makes for better movies, apparently. Stay blessed…john
I spent a year in seminary and consider myself somewhat theologicall astute and I have absolutely no settled convictions regarding eschatology (overall framework).
I am a critic of almost all popular Christian writing (Jabez, Purpose Driven, Left Behind) so I haven’t fallen in with the pre-tribbers, but I have no discernible, well defined eschatology. If this is where I am at, I don’t know what hope there is for the majority of Christians that are less inclined to study theological topics. Amil and Postmil teachers have completely abandoned the battlefield.
I am finding a lot of Charismatics and Pentecostals (the circles I travel in) who are post-trib, preterist, or even amil or postmil (I am postmil).
Some of it, I think, goes along with a rejection of dispensationalism, which has often been seen to advocate cessationism. But another big chunk of it has to do with an increased focus on the kingdom of God.
The Palestinian Christians of yesterday never understood why the christian buses drove right by their communities towards the Israeli tour stops.
The Christian community at large continues to believe the physical land has huge importance to their eschatology, so whatever the Israeli government wants, it gets. So politics sustains their inadequately informed theology.
Seminaries aren’t gutsy enough, there has never been a strong number of professors willing to be lions on a den of Daniels, my friend.
Jeff Doles,
Are you a real, live postmiller in the sense of Calvin and Van Til and Bahnsen, or is there some type of pentacostal post-millenialism that differs from the classic post-millenialism I am used to?
The assumption among many American Evangelical Christians is that pre-trib is the orthodox view. It was the view they learned through years of preaching from trusted pastors, Sunday School teaching from loving leaders, and radio teaching and books from the leading evangelicals of the Twentieth Century.
Any deviation from this view is seen as novel and bordering on heresy. Pre-Tribulational Dispensationaism a theology built on eschatology, and if you threaten the eschatology, you are threatening to undermine their entire theology.
Pre-trib is associated with “rapture.” And “rapture” is clumsily extrapolated from a few obscure passages in the New Testament.
It *must* be job security that is creating this reconsideration.
There is such a strong influence through Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody that it is difficult for those who listen to radio preachers and read the popular fiction to think in a different way.They have been taught to see each passage of Scripture through a Dispensational lense. Even in mainline, non-dispensational churches, Beth Moore and Chuck Swindall have a lot of influence. Many don’t know the theology behind the teaching.
I agree that job security and biblical illiteracy (or poor hermeneutical understanding) figure into the contemporary popularity. However, on top of the marketing blitz of the LaHaye/Jenkins series, there seems to be a current cultural, media-fed proclivity for polarization and separation and dispensationalism fits into that us/them framework, with a Christian flavor.
To overcome that understanding? Love, patience, time, relationships… I can’t imagine that reasoning, while necessary, is going to win over more in this field better than it has in other areas, can you?
Pre-trib is so pro-US and so pro-conservative and so pro-status quo. That’s why it is so popular among the vast numbers of evangelicals. The book by Gorman challenges the conservative, evangelical mindset, so it will be ignored by many.
My views on eschatology are definitely pan-millenial:
I believe that, regardless of anyone’s pet view, things are all going to pan out in the end.
And we will be able to say “I told you so” on some things and we will be thoroughly shocked and surprised at other things. Except I trust that everyone will be too involved with other matters to even want to say “I told you so.”
We shall be changed, after all.
Pre-trib seems to lead to a fatalistic world view and a withdrawn Christianity where there is no hope in the redemption of this world. At least among my circles, this view is on the way out. I’m seeing a renewed optimism that we can interact with our culture, and we can take care of creation. Our world is redeemable in Christ. We are salt and light to it.
After nearly 2,000 years the sevenfold “I am coming/this is happening soon” of Revelation is starting to make the book look like a failed prophecy. Maybe Revelation is better viewed as what 1st-century Christians were thinking and how they interpreted the Scriptures than as a map and timeline of “things to come.”
I went through the Pre-trib era until after I graduated from Bible College. I then discovered George Eldon Ladd. He changed my thinking. Then as I continued to do personal study I found myself slipping and sliding all over the prophecy charts and programs. At first the Preterist and historical position turned me off, but as I matured in my reading and understanding I finally settled somewhere between the Preterist and Historical views. I haven’t fully understood yet the difference between the two. They just make more sense to me. Recently I discovered a new translation of an old Catholic book that has stirred me spiritually. The title of the book is The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life by Father Charles Arminjon. He was a French evangelist and this book was one of the major books that influenced St. Therese of Lisieux. It disappeared for many years and then was rediscovered. Mother Theresa said it was one the books that never left her side, along with The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a’ Kempis and of course, her Bible. I found much to disagree with in the book, but was thrilled with his take on Heaven. I recommend it highly. It’s published by Sophia Institute Press.
I’m pan-trib and pan-mill. Okay, a lame attempt at humor.
I’m in the mainline, but that has nothing to do this issue. The folks in the pews read “Left Behind,” Lindsey, Haggee, and listen to radio/TV/Internet preachers. So what does one do?
Laity (sorry about that word and for what comes next, it is a generalization) often come to what they believe about eschatology because of what they’ve been told or taught. If all they’ve been taught is pre-trib then that’s what they are going to believe. I start where they are (I was there once on a lot of issues) and gently lead them to other alternatives. I also refrain from starting with this issue right away in a new setting. I’ve found folks open to listening, even changing. Some, of course, do not.
Next month I’m starting a study of Revelation with the help
of a DVD by Ben Witherington produced by Cokesbury. Should be fun. Really. About 25 people have signed up.
For me, I see the historic premill position as the strongest overall position and am “agnostic” toward the timing of the “rapture”.
“What does it take?”
A strong case made from Scripture for an alternate view point. And some humility on both sides that we may be wrong on some points and interpretations.
“What happened or what does it take for pastors to undo the view that few of them hold?”
I am not sure your polling data is representative in that I don’t know many pastors that are amill or post-trib and teaching something else. I think the dispensational/premill/pre-trib view is not only popularized by novels/movies etc. but taught in many seminaries – DTS being the main one that comes to mind.
Chris Jones @ 19
“Pre-trib is so pro-US and so pro-conservative and so pro-status quo.”
How so? A pre-trib view asserts that Jesus will come before a tribulation period to claim those in Christ, then return 7+ years later to establish His kingdom. How is that more US/conservative/status quo serving than other eschatology views? And even if it was, does that make it wrong? Or would building an actual Scriptural basis for another view be a better approach.
As a pastor one way I deal with this is to preach from my a-mill view – talk about the kingdom of God – the coming and present renewal of all of creation and how we are called into that story. Maybe this is the easy way out – to not say “the rapture is a mis read of one passage” – but to begin to offer an alterive vision for what is to come.
There are some great books to shead some light on left behind; Left behind or left Befuddled, Heaven is a place on earth; Surprised by hope.
I’m not convinced the pre-trib view is sliding in to home base quite yet. I know plenty of post-tribbers and many who hold to the preterist or partial-preterist views. The only ones that I see adhering to the pre-trib view are younger Christians who have been caught up in the multi-million dollar, money-making, “Left Behind” series. And, those who teach dispensationalism in various independent churches and seminaries.
Those of us with a reformed view seem to be either preterist or post-trib. There are plenty of jobs elsewhere for any professor who holds to either of these views.
Robin, allowing for some variation among postmillennialists, I expect that my view understanding would be pretty much in line with that. As a charismatic postmil, I believe all the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation and are part of the kingdom of God that has been forcefully advancing ever since John the Baptist.
#19 – I’ve got to raise the same question as #24. How is pretrib pro-US?
Has anyone ever read through Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s book on the sequence of prophetic events? I’m just beginning to work through it. It’s call “The Footsteps of the Messiah” and it seems to be very thorough. He admits, from the beginning that he is dispensational, pretrib, and premil. He then goes on to lay it out step-by-step.
Here in heavily DTS-influenced North Texas, Pre-trib dispensationalism is DEEPLY entrenched, and escaping its grip is no easy task. I think to escape the grasp, we need a new hermeneutic. Dispensationalism comes from a literal reading (what Brian McLaren calls a “constitutional” reading) of the the bible. If we can rethink the Bible as “narrative” instead of “system” I think the dispensational domino will fall too.
curtis@29 – I had the same question (how is pre-trib pro US conservative) and have spent quite a bit of time today trying to piece it together. Here is where I am so far….
Pre-trib folks not only tend to believe that they will be taken up and spared the tribulation, but they also tend to be dispensational so they feel it is apporpriate to have a group of people that are set apart from the rest of the world and those people are, by definition, not the Israel nation, therefore, since they are obviously blessed with this great US country they must be this set apart people that will be raptured. Additionally, they feel they are doing their part in the scheme of things because the actual land of Israel will be key in the second coming.
So in a nutshell, the feel they are blessed by god and are set apart and that fulfills the desitiny of those who will be raptured pre-trib.
Whew.
BTW, the research I did today changed my perspective of US evangelicals and the politics in our country and the world. These dispensational evangelicals are using their eschatology to drive a view of neglect and reject peace. Outrageous.
From this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
And
I did not realize just how deep this view went with these far right wingers.
I agree with those like Jason @2 who point out that a lot of this is based on what is consumed by church members, outside of the Sunday worship service.
I’m a member of a moderately Evangelical church in the Reformed tradition. But there is a strong undercurrent where in many ways our congregation has the ethos of a fundamentalist-leaning Bible church. Lots of people are influenced by sources that lean that way — Beth Moore, Kay Arthur, John Piper, BSF, RC Sproul, Campus Crusade, Christian radio [yes, I realize not all those I named are dispensationalist; I see that as a subset of a broader issue].
There has been occasional discussion in our leadership about whether we are shooting our mission in the foot by supporting some of these fundamentalist-leaning influences (like giving BSF free meeting space or having Beth Moore as our main women’s Bible Study). But the decision seems to be to avoid possible offense and hope that sound teaching on Sunday morning will prevail.
Kenton @30… define “literal.” I’d dispute that it’s a literal reading when the text is not being taken in the sense in which it was written.
Chad Miller seems to have the best answer to Scot’s question “How to undo it”. Whether people are poised to accept something different, who knows?
For me, I was never caught up with “the end times” the way some of my contemporaries were; coming to the realization that the pre/post/mid-trib millenial view was less than 200 years old -not the historic view of the church- essentially deflated it. But there was no “biblical” eschatology to be found to take its place. It was years until I came upon good historical study that gave a picture of what the first century Jews who became the first century Christians were expecting, (the meaning of “Kingdom of God”, the strong creation mandate of Judaism and its view that the material creation is good and will be restored, not burned up) and how those expectations were fulfilled/changed in the wake of the Resurrection.
I do believe that eschatology defines theology, both bad theology and good theology. We will do what we need to in order to sustain our hope, whatever that hope is.
Dana
Kenton@30 – not sure exactly what is meant by the “narrative hermeneutic” especially given that each book in the canon has a genre that dictates the hermeneutic one would use. A letter and a gospel are going to have to be handled differently.
Dana@35 – the earliest church was premill (according to the surviving early texts) with the understanding that the church would also go through the tribulation. It is similar but not the same as classic dispensationalism. The later church (think Origen and beyond) were amill, which then became the prevailing view.
DRT@31,32
Not sure you are using the best sources to understand dispensational theology. In a nut shell the pre-trib view is a belief that the church – all who are in Christ – will be taken from the earth before the tribulation. All unbelievers are left behind to go through the tribulation. The tribulation is a period of 7 years of heavy persecution on the nation of Israel and results in God’s pouring out of wrath. It culminates in the return of Christ who wipes out the nations aligned against Israel and institutes a millennial kingdom. In the millennial kingdom the national promises to Israel are completely fulfilled.
This view has nothing to do with the politics held per se or any select group of people. In fact there are two groups of people in dispensationalism – 1) believers in Christ 2) unbelievers. The other distinction is the nation of Israel as separate from the church. Dispensationalism does not favor other nations or people groups nor does it say that those of Jewish descent who trust in Christ are not saved.
“Dispensationalism teaches that Christians should not rely on spiritual good from earthly governments”
Some adherents to dispensationalism might but the theology itself does not.
“…the Kingdom of God is seen as yet to come. Instead, people should expect social conditions to decline as the end times draw nearer.”
True.
“Dispensationalists are usually not inclined to look upon the actions of the United Nations with favor, because they view this entity as working toward ungodly goals, such as contributing to the erection of the superstructure for the coming government of the Antichrist. ”
Some adherents to dispensationalism might but the theology itself does not.
“Almost all dispensationalists reject the idea that a lasting peace can be attained by human effort in the Middle East, and believe instead that “wars and rumors of wars” (Matt. 24:6) will increase as the end times approach.”
Jesus did say that there would be wars till the end. And dispensationalists do see Armageddon and the return of Christ on Mt. Olives in a battle as supporting a view that there will be war in the Middle East when He returns. Thus “lasting” peace in the view would be unattainable.
@Jason Lee #7. I may be a little slow at responding, but I would hope that our eschatology is driven more by our theology of faith, hope and love and the practice of those virtues rather than our eschatology driving the way we live our faith, hope and love.
Jaroslav Pelikan wrote,
“It would seem that very early in the post-apostolic era, millenarianism was regarded as a mark neither of orthodoxy nor of heresy, but as one permissible opinion among others within the range of permissible opinions.” (The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 100-300, p.125)
I should have said that the eschatologic view of the early church which lasted and became the historic view after winnowing is that of amillenianism. Chiliasm/millenialism was declared a heresy at the Council of Nicea; that is, it was something that was “separate” from that which had been believed by the church from the beginning and was received as the teaching handed down from the apostles. There were also various views of what “the tribulation” would consist of, but mostly it was seen as whatever persecution Christians were undergoing. It was not determined ultimately to be linked to a particular event or person. The hermeneutic of the Eastern church resists this. The book of Revelation is part of the canon of scripture in Eastern Orthodoxy, but no dogma was ever developed from it and no portion of it is read in Orthodox services, precisely because of its highly symbolic nature.
Dana
E.G. & MikeB-
I can certainly cede the word literal to your definition. I’ll use “strict literal” to differentiate.
The hermeneutic applied to Revelation in this neck of the woods is that if it can possibly be taken to “mean what it says and say what it means” it is interpreted that way. So for instance, Rev. 6:12 could not have possibly been fulfilled because the sun’s still a shinin’ and the moon ain’t red.
Now most folks here have never really thought it out, but they’ve (“we’ve”) inherited that strict literal understanding along with the dispensationalism that flowed out of it. And just because the strict literal gets thrown out, doesn’t mean the dispensationalism goes with it.
So you’re idea that each book has its own genre flies in the face of what we’ve grown up with down here, but it’s precisely (part of) what I mean by needing a narrative understanding. (The strict literal evolved from the constitutional/systematic understanding.)
One more thing: If it sounds like I’m coming down hard on my neighbors as being backwards idiots, I don’t mean that in any way. I truly love the people around me. They’re *my* people. They’ve taught me love of God, neighbor, and ironically, even the created world they think is going to be destroyed. I wouldn’t trade them for a new set of folks with a sound eschatology if my life depended on it.
In essence, it does not really matter.
A focus on the earthly return is as much a mistake as the focus at the first advent looking for the warrior king; it remains in the end a focus on the self. If one can make the conscience effort to place the focus on Father and the wondrous redemptive plan fulfilled upon the cross, The Spirit bears witness and the “return” of Christ happens then. A simplistic view of law and Grace? The letter kills but the Spirit brings life. The focus on law disqualifies one side or the other and divides like all the pundits. Grace is not “do” is it “done”. All your moral efforts are filthy rags when done in self. How does this relate to the discussion? Your focus is upon all earthly aspects of the book and completely ignores the Divine. This Christ less Christianity is intellectual and moralistic but to this broken hearted servant leaves you all mired in the fleshly pursuits of deciding the best way out of the jail cell when the door is standing open and unguarded before you. Father loves you, Jesus paid the full price of a righteous God and you are freed. This is the discussion Scot.
Pre-tribbers can draw crowds and sell books. In general, they also seem to make more of an effort in evangelism and planting churches than post-tribbers.
Unlike post-tribbers and “undecideds”, pre-trib churches and denominations preach and teach their eschatology with great passion and frequency, like there’s no tomorrow (quite literally).
“What happened or what does it take for pastors to undo the view that few of them hold?
And, Are we poised for a new shift in how we read eschatology and teach eschatology?”
It takes the same thing it takes a preacher with every sermon people aren’t going to like – faithfulness to your reading of the text after prayer and careful study. And people are more receptive to it than you realize when you don’t mock their views from the pulpit.
I just preached this morning on Daniel 7:13-14 being fulfilled during Christ’s first Advent accompanied with an unpacking of the Great Commission. Our regulars and our visitors all pulled some great points of application from it that they shared with me as we talked after.
For years i have felt that pre-trib and the whole left behind mania is pure nonsense. Recently i recieved a set of dvd’s from a friend in which Joel Richardson deals with the flawed end time hysteria. His work entitled Islam and the end times is quite refreshing. Level headed theology from the bible and not schofield or Disney. Try the book or cd it will present some sobering eschatology.
John F. Walvoord frankly admitted that the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine was rooted primarily, not in the exegesis of specific texts, but in the Dispensationalist doctrine of the church, which makes a water-tight separation between the church and Israel—the distinction which Charles Ryrie calls the sine qua non of Dispensationalist theology. Once the essential continuity between the spiritual Israel of the Old Testament (i.e., Jews and even Gentiles who were circumcised in their hearts) and the spiritual Israel of the New Testament (ditto) is demonstrated from Scripture, the need for a pre-trib rapture to explain various passages inevitably collapses.