It's the End of the World As We Know it - Making Friends

For several years I have named the SS class I teach on Eschatology “It's the End (of the End) of the World As We Know It.” And by that I simply mean that by the time we were done with the 20 to 30 week course the class would probably be introduced to a new way of looking at the subject and will hopefully have enough Biblical evidence to reject the "popular" view. Most of the class was with me up to this point - about week three or four - even when I had fun at the expense of the prophetic prognosticators they may actually read and follow.

Then the week the fan consistently got hit!

In fact, it probably wouldn't have been as bad if it was actually just one week. The critique of Left Behind Theology normally took several weeks as fielding questions took up a great deal of time and my four favorite words became, "we'll get to that!" One person, after I criticized the popular timeline of events in a section called The Second Humiliation, asked if I believed the Bible or not? It can be heard on one of the SS sessions on sermonaudio.com.

Suffice it to say that this will also take more than a couple postings.

There is a Pastor of a Church in Southern California that over the span of several years took his Church from an association with the charismatic Four Square denomination to an alliance with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church! Now, that's a shift in thinking. Part of that discourse of sermons was a series called "Remedial Christianity." The title was used because remedial does not mean "slow" or "mentally challenged," but rather that one must "unlearn" what they know first in order to put the new, correct information into the brain. This comes from the fact that different theological strains will still use the same vocabulary, but will place new definitions into them. That causes great difficulty in learning and comprehending the new material. The brain will try to associate the old definitions with the new teaching.

That is why I spend so much time critiquing the popular Left Behind view. The concepts, definitions and biases are so ingrained into our thinking that it is natural when someone hears a particular subject to associate those definitions with the new material, causing great confusion and perplexity. Also, because the view is such a part of evangelical Christianity (even the pagans are familiar with it) it has become the status quo. Many are not so much offended that someone may differ with their view as they are surprised to discover there are other views at all.

Much of evangelical Christianity thinks that the only real difference is in regard to the timing of the rapture in relation to the Tribulation - are you pre- mid- or post- trib? Most have no idea that there are differing Millennial positions, hermeneutical approaches, Church and Israel distinction debates and so on. There are several reasons for this.

1. Go to a local Christian Bookstore and browse the Eschatology or Prophecy section. How many books are NOT proponents of Left Behind Theology?

2. The opposing views have not only done a bad job of marketing their books, they haven't produced all that much material to promote their case. The exceptions appear to be Kim Riddlebarger, Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry and the late Greg Bahnsen. But those books and materials have been by small publishers (except one by DeMar) and are difficult to find. Also, for the most part many books of the non-Left Behind variety are critiques of that view without expounding upon their own view.

3. The other views just don't make for exciting movie plots of world domination and the forces of evil. Surely I jest? Not at all. The Left Behind view makes for better movie material and bumper stickers. Here's what I mean ... "In case of rapture this car will be unmanned...and yours will too since there is no secret rapture and just one general resurrection at the end of time so everyone here will be gone..." just doesn't have the same ring to it!

4. The LB view seems to fit the current world circumstances and mankind’s natural inclination toward doomsday scenarios. The Bible's more fun to read with the USA Today next to it!

5. This relates back to the first couple reasons and to an earlier post regarding Fruit Bowl Theology. To the non LB theologian, eschatology is a small, minor subset of the overall doctrinal stand and is not worth great discussion. On the other hand, the LBers place a high importance on the study and proliferation of their view.

6. Finally. Since most of the material available is of the LB variety there is no reason for the LB proponents to discuss the opposition. They deny it's existence by simply ignoring it. They assume their audience neither knows nor cares about the opposing views and therefore simply do not bring it up.

Ultimately the fault lies in those who oppose the LB view. They have done little to make their case, and in the case of one author, shown a tendency to spend more time critiquing there most closely associated brethren (Amill v Post) that they don't critique the LB view firmly enough.

That being said, the next several posts will be dedicated to a discussion and critique of LB theology...

Just trying to make friends :)