The current issue of Christianity Today (June 2011) contains an article by Matthew Dickerson of Middlebury College entitled “Who Gets Left Behind?” The author’s thesis (in a nutshell) is that “the popular interpretation [of the end times] owes more to Platonism or Gnosticism, which devalue the body and physical creation, than to Christianity.”
I agree–insofar as he is talking only about the “popular interpretation” as in what I call “folk religion.” However, I think he isn’t looking at the whole picture of premillennial or even dispensational eschatology. I expect there will be some letters to the editor from (for example) “progressive dispensationalists” correcting Dickerson.
Dickerson argues throughout the article that the theology of the end times (eschatology) expressed in books like the “Left Behind” series and in songs like Larry Norman’s “I wish we’d all been ready” contribute to a general disinterest in the world of nature God created and gave to us as a dwelling. That theology, he argues, leads its adherents to view the world as disposable and not our “home” but something we look forward to leaving–like Socrates who drank the hemlock to escape the bonds of the body and physical existence.
Dickerson seems to assume certain things about the “Left Behind” theology that may be true of some of its adherents, especially those who are unreflective in their folk religion, but may not be true of all its adherents. And I worry that what he has written may be used to criticize all premillennialism including historical premillennialism which I have embraced and defended here.
We always must make a distinction between the theological expression of a certain viewpoint and its folk religious expressions. Every good doctrine can be and usually is distorted by someone who writes a song or a book (or series) about it. I wish Dickerson acknowledged that not all premillennialists or even dispensationalists fall into the dangers or errors he attributes to them.
For example, Dickerson seems to believe that all advocates of that eschatology deny the bodily resurrection. They don’t. All the premillennial theologians I know, including dispensationalists, believe that followers of Jesus Christ will be given new bodies like Jesus’ own resurrection body (1 Cor. 15). Exactly WHEN this will happen is a matter of some debate among premillennialists. Some say at the rapture and others say at the parousia (visible return of Jesus) and others say at the end of the millennium when God brings about the new heaven and new earth. But it is wrong to imply that even advocates of “Left Behind” theology (viz., dispensationalists) deny the resurrection. Perhaps popular authors could make it clearer, however, to avoid popular misunderstanding (e.g., about permanent disembodied existence in “heaven”).
Dickerson also thinks that “Left Behind” theology leads inevitably to a kind of otherworldly attitude that denigrates this world God created and gave to us as our home. He believes (with N. T. Wright and many others) that in the eschaton we will inhabit this world renovated, that is, resurrected like our own bodies. He believes the result is that evangelicals who embrace “Left Behind” eschatology do not care for this world and are only looking forward to its destruction and their flight to a non-physical heaven.
In fact, however, all premillennial theologians, including dispensationalist theologians, believe Christ will return and rule and reign over this very world–turning it into a paradise of peace and justice. How can a person who believes that denigrate this world except insofar as it is fallen and stands in need of healing? I’m sure Dickerson wouldn’t deny that!
In sum, my criticism of Dickerson’s article is that it focuses too much on folk religion and neglects the more serious theology behind it and his article could be interpreted as aiming at the theology and not only its distorted folk expressions.
Most of my adult life as an evangelical student and theologian I have heard this criticism of premillennialism–that it leads inevitable to lack of concern for this world, that it is other worldly and therefore no earthly good. That its popularity is why many evangelicals have no interest in ecology, for example. My response is that this evangelical lack of interest in this world which is “not my home” is due to misunderstanding, not to real premillennialism.
Real premillennialism promotes concern for this world because it says this very world is where God will rule and reign with peace and justice through Jesus Christ. And, after that, this very world will be renovated (resurrected) to be our dwelling place forever in the “new heaven and new earth” brought together.
These are common themes of authentic premillennial theology–whether dispensational or historical. I wrote an entire article on this in the journal Ex Auditu’s special issue on the resurrection (1993).
One thing I agree with Dickerson about, however, is that the biblical passages usually used to support belief in a “secret rapture” in which believers will be taken away and unbelievers “left behind” do not support that belief. Matthew 24, for example, is not saying that believers will be raptured (taken away) and unbelievers left behind; it is saying the opposite–that believers will be left behind (to rule and reign with Christ for a thousand years) and unbelievers will be taken away–as it was in the days of Noah.
And I agree with Dickerson that POPULAR FOLK RELIGION tends to misinterpret premillennial (and perhaps especially dispensational) eschatology as anti-world and anti-body and thus in a gnostic or Platonic way. I just wish he had made that distinction–between serious theology and folk religion. That distinction exists in EVERY theological perspective whether it be Calvinism or Arminianism or amillennialism or premillennialism or pietism or scholastic orthodoxy or whatever.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In