How odd to end the year thinking about eschatology! The issue today for many of us is the power and the pervasiveness of the Left Behind approach to reading Revelation.
The method is so pervasive many today just don’t even want to talk about this stuff. Many raise their hands and walk away — choosing to spend their energies on other topics. Well, I wish we could create a logjam and force the entire issue to be reconsidered. What would it take for that to be done?
Michael Gorman, Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness: Following the Lamb into the New Creation spends some of his energies pointing to the problems with the Left Behind approach to Revelation. (May I confess that Jerry Jenkins’ son and my son played baseball against one another in high school. Jerry’s son hit a home run against our best pitcher. (So, Jerry, if you are reading, much luv but… here we must part.)
So here goes:
This approach is the most influential approach to Revelation in America. He finds three kinds of problems: hermeneutical, theological and political.Hermeneutical problems for Left Behind:
1. Not fiction simply but theology combined with an attempt to be almost like a documentary. Left Behind is like an advance DVD.
2. The Bible is a puzzle to be put into a futurist script. Hopscotch method.
3. It is selectively literal.
4. Misunderstands the nature and function of both prophetic and apocalyptic literature.
5. Finds a two-fold “coming” of Christ in Rapture and then Parousia.
6. Dispensationalism is a 19th Century approach.
7. We are on the brink of the Rapture and Tribulation … that’s what matters.
8. Misses the richest theological content: Alpha and Omega.
Theological and Spiritual Problems
1. End times is about the period between First and Second Coming.
2. To much about Rapture, and unhealthy concern with details that are unknowable.
3. Fear dominates.
4. Discipleship is reduced … in a number of ways.
5. Escapist.
6. It is inherently militaristic.
7. Anti-Catholic.
8. Fails to see the Church as the peaceful alternative.
Political problems.
1. Uncritically pro-American.
2. Privileges the modern State of Israel uncritically.
3. Suspicious of everything connected to United Nations.
4. Wars in the Middle East are justified and justifiable.
5. It is survivalist and crusader in approach.
He sees this as “thoroughly misguided.” It is dangerous theology. Killing for Jesus is justified.
Wow. I have thought that the “left behind” theology was one of the worst out there, especially among what is espoused by evangelicals, but I had no idea that these could be possible ramifications or factors in it.
I think a key is the failure to read the entire Book as story, and as the Story of God, seeing the Revelation in light of that. But yes, we must let each part have its own distinctive voice within the genre it uses.
Maybe the worst danger is the application to present day, but that flows out from a faulty approach and view in the first place. We need to be taught how to read the Bible all over again.
Even odder to start the new year thinking about eschatology.
What is meant by the rather cryptic point 1:”Not fiction but theology combined with documentary. And advance DVD“?
Yes, RJS, you got me on that one. I wrote it for pre-New Year’s and then postponed it …
I clarified slightly those condensed points.
What a great summary.
Yeah, I remember hearing a lot of evangelicals sight Left Behind eschatology as “proof” that we shouldn’t give a crap about Palestine (maybe not in those exact words, but that was the gist).
Also, as both Bishop Tom Wright and Brian McLaren have pointed out, that kind of eschatology tends to make people not care about carrying for this world. Why bother, since God’s gonna blow up the earth any day now?
Hank Hanegraaff in his book entitled, “The Apocalypse Code” adds that this approach is also anti-Semitic. Jews are “left behind”, attacked, their temple desecrated, Israel destroyed, and their blood fills the streets, and so on. Many Christian Zionists want to see the rebuilding of the Jewish temple for selfish gain in order to see the expediency of Christ’s coming rather than for the welfare of the Jewish people.
Dispensationalism is inaccurate and misleading in many ways. Dispensationalists take symbolic inferences and translate them into modern day concepts that are sometimes ludicrous. Unfortunately, this erroneous approach to eschatology has made millions of dollars for many authors.
Watchman, I want to stand up boldly against that accusation that dispensationalism is anti-Semitic. I don’t know what Hanegraaf says, so I will respond only in general.
First, anti-Semitism is a racist issue, not a religious issue. Anti-Semitism devalues a person because they are Jewish, regardless of what that person believes. Dispensationalism is not racist. (Some dispensationalists might be, but so too might some amillennialists.)
Second, dispensationalism has tended to be supersessionistic, which means it thinks the work of God shifted in some ways from Israel to the Church so that Israel has been superseded. Supersessionism is not a racist dogma but a religious way of putting the Bible’s Story together. It is not politically correct but supersessionism has been one of the Church’s beliefs — not all believe it but many do and have.
Third, dispensationalism, oddly enough, also has one of the highest views of the State of Israel and of Jews in general. Yes, it sees Israel through the lens of its views on prophecy and the future of Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple. But it has traditionally valued Israel, and many today think the US’s policies with respect to favoring Israel are connected to this dispensational thinking in many ways.
I find myself disgusted with how influential this thinking is, yet I work in an inter-denominational setting and I wonder just how dangerous it is. I wonder how active I should be in fighting against it, thus confronting various partners of mine in the Gospel, some from Dallas Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Calvary Chapel, etc. If I really found it extremely dangerous, I might fight against it more (seeking all the while to fight against ideas, not against people).
These views seem quite dangerous to my Arab Christian brothers and sisters, in Palestine and in other places as well. But this eschatological viewpoint is not the only thing aligned against them. Even if bad eschatology were taken out of the picture, I think they would still be suffering.
1. My first question is this: Just how dangerous or destructive is all of this? Gorman and Scot list several dangers, and I agree, but over time I still go back and forth as to just how important an issue this is. If other readers think this is quite dangerous, please say so and please say why. I need some convincing.
2. My second question is the same as Scot’s. He says, “I wish we could create a logjam and force the entire issue to be reconsidered. What would it take for that to be done?”
One of the main reasons that dispensational, Christian Zionist, and Left Behind thinking have become the default eschatological mode for American evangelicals is that, since the 19th century, this camp has dominated the field with their literature, study Bibles, films, and other media. To make things worse, publishing media like this is very lucrative. Many different publishers know this, and people like Jerry Jenkins know this very well.
Should we try to out-media the dispensational media machine? If so, how could it be done?
Often people point to the efforts of Gary Demar (see http://www.americanvision.org/), but I find him overly shrill and don’t want to propagate that kind of attitude. I also don’t want to propose a narrowly Reformed view as the best alternative to a narrowly dispensational view.
Hank Hanegraaff tried to do an alternative fiction series, but I don’t think it was very successful. And many people find his approach to this and a number of other issues quite shrill.
I deeply appreciate and recommend the work of Stephen Sizer (www.stephensizer.com), A British pastor who has worked creatively and winsomely. I invite those reading this to pray for him because he is regularly persecuted for his work.
Gary Burge is an American professor with a similarly admirable tone. See http://www.wheaton.edu/Theology/faculty/burge/.
The recent documentary “With God on Our Side” (www.withgodonourside.com) has made a excellent contribution. I encourage readers to buy and recommend it.
As you can see, my primary preoccupation is with Christian Zionism, which is one of the most destructive aspects of all of this.
What more can be done? Do others have other recommendations?
And again, just how dangerous or destructive is all of this?
great post. thanks
Scot, I appreciate your bold stand against the accusation that dispensationalism is racist. However, I wish dispensationalists would take a bold stand against the accusation that amillennialists are racist. I have been called anti-Semitic by more than one dispensationalist for my amillennial views. I’ve heard many times the amillennial position referred to by dispensationalists as “replacement theology” – a very perjorative term. So I think there needs to be understanding on both sides of the issue. Amillennialists and dispensationalists alike love and value Jewish people and wish for them to embrace Jesus the Messiah.
As someone who has grown up in a segment of evangelicalism that is largely influenced by a dispensational reading of scripture, I have been reading these posts with great interest and fascination. For me this one is definitely the most interesting so far.
It seems to me that one of the major pitfalls of a dispensationalist reading of the scriptures is that it has a tendency to begin with eschatology , and then let that shape ecclesiology, mission, etc. My struggle over the past several years has been one of attempting to begin with Christ, and let his life shape my Ecclesiology, which in turn shapes mission, and that places hope in a properly formed eschatology.
I like Michael Gorman’s 3 types of problems. I would suggest a fourth that has probably been one of the major factors in me rethinking my eschatology. that 4th area is Cultural Problems. It seems to me that a dispensationalist perspective almost always results in a “Christ against Culture” stance. It encourages withdrawl and separation from the culture, and seems to result in a perspective that views people on the outside as enemies we need to be protected from. An escapist mentality will always adversely affect the relationship someone has to creation itself and the people that live in that creation. This may be somewhat contained in the pther three problem areas identified, but it was the area that pushed me to question the viability of Dispensational Theology. The “Christian” life it was producing in me and the life I saw Jesus living were so different that I felt like I needed to reformat my hard-drive and start over.
The reason that the dispensational view is so pervasive is that even though it is shallow, simplistic, and unreasonable, it captures the imagination. This is why well-reasoned responses do not necessary have much of an impact. Scot, as your subject line suggests, if we want to shift the tide we have to do a better job of presenting the eschatological story in a way that engages the imagination. I seriously doubt that an academic response, such as that which Gorman produced (as outstanding as it is), will make a lick of difference.
@ 7
Though Watchman didn’t say this, I would push back that the dispensationalism of the Left Behind series CAN (but not necessarily) lend itself to anti-semitism in the form of discrimination against Arab people and anti-Arab foreign policies since Arabs are semitic people as well.
That aside, absolutely agree with the list that Gorman establishes. As far as the logjam and forcing reconsideration, I think that encouraging our people to read and study the scriptures and asking pointed (but loving!) questions has been very fruitful with our people. I don’t think debate bears much transformation.
The Left Behind mentality found strongly in America indeed permeates the body of believers whether subtly or as highly impactful. A couple of postings mentioned Hank Hanegraaff and Gary DeMar as those who are quite active against this movement and IMO rightfully so but I agree that their approach is not as refined or as sophisticated as it could be. In fact when Hanegraaff wrote his book “The Apocalypse Code” he took a major hit toward his ministry financially speaking. This IMO was because he is indeed a bit “shrill” and also he simply failed to measure his audience appropriately concerning this mentality. This is why those like Scot who are steady, evenhanded and yet firm will just need to continue pointing these problems out and hopefully this stuff will start to die down as the Left Behind scenario keeps missing their dates. Maybe it can be painted for what it is as biblical fiction as there is no magic bullet to just kill it off quickly.
Concerning anti Semitic remarks; it’s apparent that every side uses the racist charge to impugn the other in some aspect to gain a cheap political advantage. You really have to focus on the practical issues at hand to weed out the specious assignments being bandied about.
I too believe the Rapture Theology of Dispensationalism leads easily (though not inevitably) into irresponsible and dangerous worldviews, particularly with regard to Christian Zionism and pro-American folk-theology.
I view it almost exactly in the same light as I view the other widespread heresy within evangelicalism/fundamentalism: the Prosperity Gospel. There will always be proponents of it using media to capture the imaginations, desires and selfish greed of the uninformed or misinformed. But that doesn’t mean Christians should shrug out shoulders and consider it an “agree to disagree” issue.
Are there awesome, Godly, loving followers of Jesus who hold to Dispensational eschatology? Of course there are…many of them are my friends and fellow ministers. But there are likewise many awesoem, Godly, loving followers of Jesus who hold to some form of Prosperity doctrine. This doesn’t make them non-Christians or “wolves in sheep clothing” or any of the other labels that many “discernment” bloggers would level at them. But it does make them wrong.
Pointing out that this view is precisely that–wrong–is something that the wider body of Christ must continue to do in a way that is challenging, but not unloving. Stern, but not shrill. More than anything, we must continue to raise the questions that get people to begin reexamining WHY it is that they actually believe it and WHERE it arose from. But this must be done by respected evangelical leaders and scholars from across denominational/theological schools of thought. It can’t be limited to critiques by Reformed Amillennialists. Historic Premillennialists (like Ben Witherington, for example) have forcefully spoken against it and must continue to do so.
I would be great if a group of evangelicals would draft a statement that deals with the dangers of Dispensational eschatology and have it signed by leaders from many denominations and eschatological positions. Charismatics, Reformed Calvinists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Premillennialists, Postmillennialists, Amillennialists, Preterists, seminary professors, pastors, bishops/elders/deacons, scholars, etc. I know I would gladly sign and circulate such a document and it would force the issue to be addressed by evangelicals in general I believe.
Do people like Mohler support this? Is it calvinistic?
..and my first thought on reading this post this morning is what JM captured in (his?) last paragraph. A public statement.
I inherited a strongly dispensational setting. I always, even when I was young, found it to be gnostic and nihilistic (though I didn’t know those words when I was young). To me, this is the most important critique. It renders this life entirely meaningless, except for the moment of decision that allows one to escape the Tribulation.
A very interesting study “Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares” shows how dispensationalism became popular as the cold war heated up. I would suggest that contemporary “classical” dispensationalism is as much or more a child of the cold war than of 19th Century Darbyism.
I don’t think dispensationalism is anti-Semitic, but I do think it’s hopelessly naive and reductionistic with respect to Judaism. And we also have to distinguish “progressive” dispensationalism.
Surprised by Hope was one of the first books I read challenging and revealing the flaws of Dispensationalism not by writing discourses against it but by offering an incredible alternative to dispensationalism. The questions it raised were along the lines of DispyKid; they caused me to realize that this eschatology was shaping me into a person contrary to Jesus and the Missio Dei.
Gordon Fee did a recent interview on his new book on Revelation that might bring some clarity to the errors of the Left Behind approach and deal with the danger of aberrant eschatalogical approaches like those of IHOP in Kansas City; here are some brief excerpts:
“The book of Revelation is… a common kind of literature
for the people who received it. So they didn’t come to it with great
mystery and try to dig out all the things. It’s subversive literature. It’s
basically telling the Roman empire that their days are numbered. Right
at the height of their glory, when Rome had reached the peak of
its power and universal domain, here is John, exiled, on a lonely
island, basically facing towards Rome and saying, ‘God’s got your
number — your days are coming to an end.’ It took 200 years for it to
happen, but time wasn’t John’s big thing. It was the certainty of it.
So that’s what the Revelation is basically about. It’s about God in
charge of the universe and not the Roman Empire”.
“Revelation is a marvelous book. And I just cringe whenever I see and hear people take it and make it have to do primarily with something in our future, when the only stuff that’s in our future is chapters 21 and 22. Everything else belongs back in the near future of those seven churches and all other Christians at the beginning of the second century – wonderful re-assurance. It’s about the first-century church that is headed for a terrible two-century holocaust.”
“Revelation wasn’t written to us, but we hear it as a word for us, once we understand it as a word for them, and what it was saying to them”.
I imagine that one reason this type of eschatology remains popular is that it appeals strongly to children and younger teenagers. I teach 8th & 9th graders in a Christian setting and their eyes light up whenever the topic of Revelation comes up. The idea that God has given them a roadmap/picture of the future (in a Left Behind literal sense) is very exciting/amazing to them. And they have been taught by someone in the past that Revelation is to be interpreted this way. As these students grow up, many of them will not seek out a deeper understanding of the scriptures (especially in eschatology).
I think one way to change the current perceptions of eschatology is to teach our teenagers the various ways people have interpreted Revelation in the past 2000 years. Opening up the minds of the young to multiple options may not be as exciting as Left Behind, but it may be more responsible.
The author did not disclose their own eschatological viewpoint, nor any biblical support for their points. I am not necessarily for, or against, the pretribulational (dispensational) premillennial position of the “Left Behind” books, but due to the difficult nature of the prophetic scriptures used to support one’s eschatological beliefs, it would behoove us to extend grace to all sides of the debate. I think Wayne Grudem says it very well:
“…it is important to realize that the interpretation of the details of prophetic passages regarding future events is often a complex and difficult task involving many variable factors. Therefore the degree of certainty that attaches to our conclusions in this area will be less than with many other doctrines. Even though I will argue for one position (classical premillennialism), I also think it important for evangelicals to recognize that this area of study is complex and to extend a large measure of grace to others who hold different views regarding the millennium and the tribulation period.” Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem
Dopderbeck references Angela Lahr’s fine “Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares” in suggesting the importance of the cold war for dispensationalism’s popularity.
I would also suggest Paul Boyer’s “When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture” for those interested in the topic. Boyer’s analysis of Hal Lindsey’s writings is brilliant.
DispyKid (#11) makes an excellent point in his third paragraph about the “Christ against culture” stance of Left Behind theology. I not only find this stance misguided, but also a hindrance to true, loving evangelism.
Brad Boydston (#12) and Paul (#21) both make excellent points about how Left Behind-ism captures the imagination. Maybe an imagination-capturing approach like Wright’s _Suprise by Hope_ (mentioned by Jonathanblake [#19]) can gain some ground in this way.
I appreciate JM’s concerns (#15), but although I feel the prosperity gospel is quite destructive in most of its forms, I don’t at all agree with his seeing dispensational theology and prosperity gospel “in the same light”. I feel the prosperity gospel is ravenously destructive to the faith of a large number of people, and that it should be strongly, but lovingly, opposed. I see it, in its most advanced forms, as worthy of being called “a different gospel . . . which is no gospel at all”, comparable in scale to Galatians 1.6-7.
Dispensational theology, however, is unfortunately popular, and distorts important truths, but I don’t see it as so fully aberrant as the prosperity gospel.
I see dispensational Christians as partners in the Gospel with whom I differ, but I desire no partnership with those who seek to actively promote a full-blown prosperity gospel around the world.
Nonetheless, JM (#15) makes an excellent point that we should raise the issue of how and why such ideas arose. It is similar to Paul’s (#21) suggestion of showing people the variety of ways things have been interpreted. And these strategies fit my interdenominational setting very well.
Please tell us, Jim (#20), where to find Gordon Fee’s interview.
Although I am less familiar with it, I am also disturbed by the rising influence of IHOP’s eschatology (mentioned by Jim, #2). One of the things I find most disturbing is that people seem to adopt it simply because Mike Bickle says so, and because they seem to simply be riding the wave of IHOP as a booming movement. Is it widely viewed as aberrant? Is it just a post-trib version of rapture-heavy dispensationalism?
And I love the idea of a public statement, as described by JM at the end #15!
Who could organize and promote such a statement? (I don’t nominate DeMar or Hanegraaf. There are statements related to the Middle East conflict, but something broader could be very helpful.) Should we nominate Scot McKnight?
Public statements don’t change hearts and minds, they just clarify the separation between groups. Name one declaration that actually swayed people to think, “I should now support this even though it totally goes against where I was before.”
This is where I would see apt application of Andy Crouch’s tag line: We don’t change culture by critiquing it; the only way to change culture is to create culture.
We need Tolkiens and CS Lewis to build off of the work of Ladds, Wrights, and Fees. Dispensationalism spread as a Sunday School curriculum and fictional stories, not declarations.
This is just a terrific article! I’m one of those “raised dispensationalist” baby-boomers and to be honest, it hurts my feelings a little bit when dispensationalists are mocked. It’s like a lifelong Republican who becomes a Democrat still cringing a little when all Republicans are demonized. Not that you’re insulting all dispensationalists, but, for instance, linking it to children or teenagers (i.e., immaturity). All children/teenagers I know are terrified of it. It gives them nightmares at night. The teaching of it has harmed my children far more than it has harmed me. At any rate, I’m trying with all my might not to be a dispensationalist anymore, but sometimes I slip back into that old habit because, face it, we really don’t know how the last chapter is going to be played out and sometimes it is the only scenario that makes sense. However, I take issue with it because it seems to make (some) people subconsciously more pro-war and it suggests that Christians will not suffer great tribulation, when many, many, many Christians already do. I will say this in favor of dispensationalists, they love Jewish people more than anyone I know. And when you’ve lived with this “doctrine” for 60 or 90 years, it’s kind of hard just to shut it off.
Muse,
You should be able to sleep well because the last chapters of Revelation have already been played out and it was very good. In fact it was the best that could happen to God’s people. No more having to drudge up to a physical temple anymore because we are the living Temple of God. Sleep well as we dwell in the New City and the Nations are constantly being healed through Christ the River of Life.
I agree with many of the comments here… thanks for continuing to bring this to our attention Scot! A much needed discussion.
I have to add one thing… as one who grew up in dispensationalism, and is also Jewish.
To say dispensationalism is anti-semitc is too harsh. But having experienced it from the inside, I find something more subtle at work.
At least in my context, Jewish people were objectified. The modern state of Israel is seen as the same as Israel of Scripture (and there are Jewish people who debate both sides of this). And so to usher in the rapture and end times, I a noticed an almost instrumental view of the Jewish people… many, in a sense loved Israel because of what it would do for us: get us raptured.
Objectifying people is often de-humanizing, and doesn’t deal with real complex issues of the state of Israel, Palestinians, etc…. that is the more subtle issue I have with dispensationalism.
1. I disagree with Brad that “it [Left Behind/ dispensationalism] captures the imagination”. If you mean holds the imagination captive/ imprisoned to a pejorative view of the Middle East then I agree.
Rather I agree with Paul:
“I imagine that one reason this type of eschatology remains popular is that it appeals strongly to children and younger teenagers. I teach 8th & 9th graders in a Christian setting and their eyes light up whenever the topic of Revelation comes up. The idea that God has given them a roadmap/picture of the future (in a Left Behind literal sense) is very exciting/amazing to them. And they have been taught by someone in the past that Revelation is to be interpreted this way. As these students grow up, many of them will not seek out a deeper understanding of the scriptures (especially in eschatology).”
I have seen some pastors/ theology that engages the imagination, I am thinking of my OT prof Meredith Kline as well as Mike Horton’s book on Rediscovering the Drama of God Centered Worship, much of which comes from Kline, Horton makes Kline’s intense writing easier to understand.
2. Authors/ Theologians/ Ministries are reluctant to challenge any view that challenges Israeli policies. I have consulted with very well known ministry of an author and they repeatedly told me that the organization and the author had suffered great criticism and lost 80% of donations when they spoke truth to events that were falsely framing Arab-Americans in a pejorative manner. I kept pushing that there needs to be a response to the pejorative views spawned from dispensationalism/ Christian Zionism. They kept telling me what huge sacrifices the ministry has suffered due to their stance in the events I mentioned earlier and said they can not do more than challenge Christians to love Arabs and Muslims. In the USA if you challenge dispensationalism/ Christian Zionism and/ or expose Israel’s evil deeds your ministry suffers. Israel is a sacred cow you can’t criticize, Israel is an idol.
Peace to you,
Rana
(Iraqi born Palestinian Christian in USA)
MattR — interesting point. As I experienced it, the entire missiology of dispensationalism was instrumentalist. The key reason for reaching the unevangelized was an interpretation of Matt. 24:14 — that preaching to the last “unreached people groups” was a prerequisite for the rapture. Even as a kid I found this perplexing and rather unfortunate for those outside the circle of first contact who would presumably be left behind.
dopderbeck,
Agreed. I felt this too… and am glad a fuller Missio Dei theology, connected to a more hopeful eschatology, has been challenging this instrumentalist view.
I went to a Bible college that was very dispensational in theology, with a number of professors who came from Dallas Theological Seminary. It was also a very evangelistically oriented college, but not as instrumental to hastening the rapture. We figured that the rapture was going to be on God’s time table, not ours. We also figured that it was already immanent anyway. Maybe for some dispensationalists, reaching the unevangelized was primary instrumental. But for most of the ones I’ve ever seen, they evangelize because they want to see people saved.
Richard (#26) is right that public statements often do very little to change the minds of the strongly opinionated. For example, have the CBMW and CBE statements and lists of signers moved people from one camp to another? Not many, I would think.
But the issue of dispensational theology is rather different. It is a minority position among Christians, among Protestants, and yes, it is a minority position among evangelicals. But it masquerades itself as a majority evangelical position because of its successful marketing campaign for well over a century. Many Christian leaders oppose it and don’t say so. Some kind of a statement could show people what a minority position it is. JM (#15, last paragraph) gives us a striking list of the variety of people that could sign such a statement. There are others still. I wish it would happen.
In the mean time, I might need to content myself with often pointing out that Christians differ on certain issues. Just a couple of weeks ago, one of the young people who has recently joined the ministry I am a part of posted an Israeli flag as his Facebook photo with the statement “Standing with Israel is standing with God”. The Israeli flag indicates that by “Israel” he means the current political state of Israel. I look forward to being able to point out that many Christians have other points of view.
MattR said: “At least in my context, Jewish people were objectified. The modern state of Israel is seen as the same as Israel of Scripture (and there are Jewish people who debate both sides of this). And so to usher in the rapture and end times, I a noticed an almost instrumental view of the Jewish people… many, in a sense loved Israel because of what it would do for us: get us raptured.
Objectifying people is often de-humanizing, and doesn’t deal with real complex issues of the state of Israel, Palestinians, etc…. that is the more subtle issue I have with dispensationalism.”
I couldn’t agree more with this, as well as with Rana’s comments about the modern state of Israel being a sacred cow to many Dispensationalists (and even many non-Dispensationalists who’ve adopted the Dispensationalist thinking regarding Israel).
A statement by Christian leaders doesn’t by itself change anyone’s minds…but it does show unity on important issues by influential Christian leaders across the theological/denominational spectrum. It lets those in the pews know who believes what and why. Thus, when done charitably and on order to unify rather than divide, it can be a good tool in generating discussion and forcing the Church to wrestle with what we believe as a whole–it also clarifies to a confused outside culture what it is exactly that Christians do–and do not–believe in general. It shows the Muslim world that Christian =/= Pro-Israel or Pro-American. And more than anything else, it sharpens those with whom we disagree by challenging a false teaching they have embraced.
Unlike issues where HUGE segments of the church have differed for centuries (or even millennia), Rapture theology is one in which a TINY minority of Christians have introduced a foreign doctrine into the Body of Christ in the last century and a half alone (just as was done with the Prosperity Gospel); thus it should be identified for what it is and lovingly challenged among our brothers and sisters who know no better. It’s not like the Egalitarian/Complementarian, Predestination/Freewill, Creationism/Evolution or Church Government/Ecclesiology debates in this way.
In my courses on eschatology and Revelation, I have always wanted to be able to hand the students a list of Prominent Christian leaders and where they stand regarding eschatology…but even moreso I’ve wanted a list of leaders who, despite their differences of eschatology views, all affirm the recent and unbiblical origins of Classical (as opposed to Progressive, which is a much healthier form) Dispensational theology.
Thanks so much for this. I have a new perspective on the way many I have acquainted with act. I don’t blame them, how could I, they think they are being good people.
Satan is using the church to hurt the world;
JM, even though signatories of a statement may do little, which is an arguable point of view, it is encouraging for believers like myself who are from the Middle East to see and read that there are American Christians who do not despise us, based on our ethnicity/ origin which is something outside of our control and rather within the providence of God.
When Israeli missiles, cluster bombs and white phosphorus rain down violence and destruction on heavily populated cities in Lebanon and Gaza, and then you here “pastors” like Calvary Chapel’s Pope Chuck Smith encouraging such force and hate, it is very disheartening. So when we read names and signatures denouncing the exploitation of our scriptures for political gain we are encouraged and we have hope that the church is neither deaf nor mute to our suffering and grief in regards to these particular issues.
I have enjoyed reading this post and the comments, it is refreshing to find so many believers whom I can agree with on these issues.
Peace to you,
Rana
It seems to me that the hermeneutical aspect carries the day in the circles I run. Even if it is selectively literal, an approach which might be justified based on genre, a dispensational reading of Revelation is still considered the most literal of interpretive strategies and hence, carries a lot of weight with those who generally seek a (selectively) literal hermeneutic.
Dispensationalism will therefore be the dominant way of understanding not just Revelation, but the whole Bible among American Evangelicals until it can be shown to be less faithful to the Bible than other interpretative methods.
The difficulty is that to understand Revelation in it’s first (or early second) century context requires quite a bit of digging into history. It may then appear to take the book out of the hands of ordinary people and place it only in the hands of scholars, a group that is largely distrusted by adherents to folk theology anyways. (Of course, if you have tried to follow dispensational readings, they actually rely just as heavily on experts as any historical-critical hermeneutic.)
Dan Arnold says”
Dan, I have to disagree with this. I think if you took anyone unfamiliar with Christianity and dispensationalism the would 100% read revelation and say that it is symbology for something else. I don’t think it makes any sense to read it literally and it is only the cultural conditioning of those in evangelical circles that do so.
The obvious interpretation of revelation is metaphor at best.
We need 40 years for those folks to die off so reason can prevail.
Sorry Dan, I guess your last sentence is actually in keeping with what I said, you said “Of course, if you have tried to follow dispensational readings, they actually rely just as heavily on experts as any historical-critical hermeneutic.)”
JM, read your post more closely, totally agree. There used to be such a list on the Knox Seminary website under the Wittenberg Door, the state can still be found at:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/wdoor.html#add
It seems that Knox has had some controversial changes/ problems in the last few years, would be interesting to know why this was taken down. I know one of my favorite contemporary theologians Micheal Horton’s signature was on the list. This list had to be taken down within the last 1-2 yrs since I recall posting it to my Facebook page.
Peace,
Rana
Scot, this is a wonderful post! I agree with you in entirety on this issue and have Gorman’s book on pre-order.
Here is the issue I have to deal with in ministry… How do I address this with people who hold this theology as the only way to understand the eventual future? I have seen so much frustration for bringing up that the Mark 13 passage has to do with 70AD issues and Revelation has to do with issues in local churches in the shadow of the Roman Empire and not much to do with our future (less the final 2 chp’s or so).
Anyway, have you seen this addressed pastorally in a way that didn’t cause people to create division, or is division inevitable because of our US context?
The reference to imagination in the heading is apt. I agree with Gorman’s logically stated points. However, Revelation is a book that appeals to the imagination and emotions. Left behind theology will not be countered by logical theological statements. This task will only be achieved an interpretation of Revelation that appeals to the imagination and stirs emotions.
I would add (not having read the comments yet) that there are two added problems that are the fruit of this theology:
1. it creates an anti-earth care mentality “It’s all gonna burn anyway” – fear of environmentalism and a buying into consumer waste that is killing us all. I was raised in the Plymouth Brethren and regularly heard growing up “Oh, just throw it away, that way Jesus will come back sooner” somehow indicating that helping to wreck the earth will force God’s hand.
2. Physical & mental health are greatly impacted. Personal body care and fitness are regularly neglected as this life is scorned for the “next life” to come – the enjoyment of the here and now is non-existent because it’s all about being with Jesus. So many are convinced that the rapture is imminent that their own well being is treated with disdain.
Jeff (#33) — yes I’m sure you’re right, in no small part because the average person in a dispensational church doesn’t really understand or pay attention to what is being taught. All I can say is that I attended numerous missions conferences at a large dispensational church with well-known conservative missiologists in which this was a very prominent theme.
Another place where I feel this theology can be damaging is regarding financial planning and personal stewardship. My parents, whom I dearly love and who are dear people of God and who are getting into their mid-70′s, were reading a book on vacation this summer called “The Coming Economic Armageddon” by David Jeremiah, a popular dispensational preacher. No — they were consuming this book, hanging on its every confirmation of their worst fears about the future, playing off the present turmoil in the markets as its apologetic. Sigh, sigh, sigh, sigh. I’m glad they have enough money for their needs but not enough that any of the advice in this book would cause them to make foolish financial mistakes.
I agree with Heidirenee’s first point about dispensationalism and the anti-earth care ideolgy. A number of dispensationalists have stated this clearly, notably John Macarthur. On his website, he writes: “The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet–it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so–that’s all–and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.”
That seems far from the “good steward” role many other Christians embrace.
There’s some fallacies occurring in some of the reasoning here in the comments. Just because some of the proponents of dispensationalism are anti-earth, anti-Palestine, etc. doesn’t mean that all are or that the doctrinal system itself requires these beliefs. If we judge a system by those who use it as an excuse for unbiblical behavior, then let’s also to be fair throw out Calvinism (why share our faith if God decides who will saved: e.g. pre William Carey English Calvinists), Arminianism (manipulate people into making a poorly thought through decision of faith: e.g. Charles Finney), etc.
My own personal beliefs would be labeled (even though I hate labels) as “progressive dispensational”. Simply (and perhaps simplistically), I see a difference between the church and Israel (while holding to a closeness between the two). I do not believe in a pre-Tribulation rapture, interpret Matthew 24 as preterist with possible future fulfillment, and read Revelation as subversive literature that offers eternal perspective on government in a broad sense and encouragement for the persecuted believer.
I grew up in a dispensational church. The benefit for me in the sensational theology was that it drew me into the scriptures with a heavy interest at an early age. Through this I soon began to see some of the ridiculous interpretations of scripture by some within the movement (the locusts of Revelation are actually helicopters, etc.) and began to be troubled by some of the ways the system seemed to force itself on Scripture (according to some classic dispensationalists the Sermon on the Mount is only applicable to Jesus’ Jewish followers pre-His death and will only be applicable again for Jewish followers during the Millenium). The final turning point was during my experience at Moody Bible Institute – a dispensational school – when many of our dispensational professors challenged us to study various views on the rapture and on how scripture fit together.
“Progressive dispensationalism” is a label designed to allow Darrell Bock to keep his job at Dallas Theological Seminary. There is a major chasm between “Progressive dispensationalist” and classical dispensationalist thinking. Even though “progressive” in US culture has come to mean liberal they are not liberals — just not so rigid, as Jeff (#48) illustrates. In someways classical dispensationalism is more systematic in its approach. But it has charts and pictures and novels and movies to communicate. So far, even though PD is more balanced (and I’d suggest more biblical) there isn’t anything in the PD approach that is engaging the imaginations and hearts of the masses.