Rethinking Apocalypse
Jared's recent thoughts on preterism have gotten my own wheels turning a bit on the topic of eschatology. I like Jared's well-stated summary, and I'll admit to having leanings in that direction. But in truth I'm not really settled on how I think about it - I have an uneasy relationship with the whole affair, to be honest. Eschatology is one of those topics that I think a lot of normal people who are trying to follow Jesus spend a lot of time avoiding, sort of like an embarrassing uncle at a family reunion. We all know it's part of the family, but none of us wants to admit that we're related. Unless, of course, you buy into the whole Left Behind scam series, in which case you probably have other issues.
Personally, my ambivalence towards the topic goes back to childhood. When I was around four or five years old, someone in the church that my family attended at the time got the bright idea to show the scare-the-hell-out-of-you 70's-era Tribulation movie series - Thief in the Night and all that. First of all, anyone that thinks those movies are appropriate for four year old children needs to be taken out behind the church and slapped - decapitations and whatnot are just not the stuff I plan on showing to my kids in the name of Jayzus. But on top of their generally gruesome perspective, I can in all honesty say that these movies caused some serious damage to me spiritually. It took years, and by years I mean close to twenty, to come to the point where I didn't live in fear of what that perspective represented. Fear is probably not the best way to develop one's spiritual life, at least not when it's at the terror end of the spectrum as opposed to awe.
Somewhere along the line, I think, we in western Christianity forgot the whole point of all of the New Testament apocalyptic language. In reality, it doesn't really matter how you interpret the scriptures in relation to times and fulfillments and all if you miss the whole reason for the talk to begin with. Christian eschatological language should be the language of hope. And this, I think, is what bothers me so much about the LaHayeification of apocalyptic speech in the western church. Christian apocalyptic language is the speech of free people in defiance of a social order that claims absolutism. In the face of Roman domination, John could write of the fall of Babylon and his readers knew that he referred to the oppressive regime that persecuted them, tortured and killed them - that he was speaking of the inevitable fall of Rome and triumph of the Lamb and his people. It shows things for the way they truly are, instead of how the powers would like to portray them. It pulls back the curtain, just for a moment, to let us see the impotence of the wizard and the futility of his attempts at control. It is a language of HOPE, of triumph and victory and celebration. What have we to fear?
But fear is exactly what this sort of approach has engendered, fear and loathing and an avoidance of certain chunks of scripture. Where is the hope? It is difficult, if not impossible, to locate. A fearful people cannot help but view the present age as something destined to pass away and therefore not worth the effort of preserving. Ironically, such a fear only binds one closer to the very reality of death that the language of hope desires to overcome. A hopeful people need have no fear of death - it has already been conquered. We can live boldy, daring much, giving all.
You are so right, Scott. What is it about us that causes us to miss the forest for the trees?
Posted by Jared on May 10, 2005 07:06 PMMotive? If we think we can scare people into heaven, isn't that justification enough? It goes back I think to our distortion of what the gospel is all about - sin management as others have called it (Willard, I think?).
That's actually one of the reasons why I have sympathies for the preterist view - I think it's one understanding of eschatology that carries a positive message. There's hope floating around in there, hope in the realization of redemption already accomplished, and I like that. (Is that a fair way to put it?)
Posted by ScottB on May 10, 2005 10:55 PMI'm new to blogs, first, so forgive any indiscretions. Just some thoughts:
I enjoyed reading both of your blogs on eschatology. I am not a preterist, but what you're both reacting to is the reality that we often live in -- Christians more focused on their own belly buttons than on the world in which God has placed them.
Prophetic revelation was given to us for knowledge, for hope, and to get us busy in our worlds sharing Christ's love (the time is short). It was not given to make us fearful. It was not given to confuse us. It was not given so we might avoid it. And it was also not given that we might be obsessed with it. It is, however, comforting to know that God is at work in our world and that God will make all right.
It disturbs me to hear people talk of -- name the doctrine -- as if it weren't worthy of our time. (Our being so concerned with the lost and all.) It's not really that important, right? Yet God spoke the words purposefully. What do we do with them? The words have been given to us that we might know God and his movement throughout history. That we might join with him.
C.S. Lewis's writings on the two errors in demonology is appropriate, I think. The first error is to not think about demons at all. The second error is to think about them too much. (Lewis is probably rolling over in his grave.)
Posted by Scott L on May 11, 2005 11:38 PMScott - no apologies needed. Thanks for dropping by, and for your thoughts. First, I hope I don't sound as though I'm saying that eschatology isn't worthy of our time. Actually, I'm sort of saying the opposite, but probably not in the way a lot of people would think. I do think that there is still to come the final fulfillment of God's Kingdom on earth, that the new creation is not yet a reality. But I'm not sure of all that means, what it entails, and how it will all come about (although I do believe that a lot of what scripture describes has already taken place, hence my sympathies for the preterist view). That's sort of the emphasis that it seems a lot of our talk of eschatology has, and I think you're exactly right that it can end up focusing us on the wrong things. My thinking rather is that if we focus on what's behind the imagery, what the purpose of the apocalyptic speech of the NT is, then we'll I think be a bit surprised by the hope that we find welling out of these cryptic texts. I think it's more along the lines of saying, "Things look bad, and it looks like God is not in control. But if you could see what I see, you'd know that is the farthest thing from the truth. In fact, Christ has dethroned the powers of this age - made a mockery of them! Soon what is evident in the spirit will be made evident physically, naturally, visibly, politically as well. God's kingdom will be established, and what is already true will be made public knowledge." That's a hopeful message - and it's one that I think too often gets lost in the talk of times and fulfillments.
Hope that makes sense - and you're always welcome to give your thoughts. Thanks for dropping by!
Posted by ScottB on May 12, 2005 12:01 AMScott I love how you mention that escatology should be a language of hope. Not terror tactics but hope. Hope also gives additional facets to redemption.
THis is a great post. Fear is such a powerful tool of control, but isn't hope and love to give freedom? I'd like to ponder this post more and glean some fresh thinking in the process.
You said, "Fear is such a powerful tool of control, but isn't hope and love to give freedom?" Now that is a statement that warrants some unpacking. It's sobering, I think, to ponder why it is that we frame things the way we do - why, for example, we construct theologies based on (or oriented towards) fear. Great thoughts.
Posted by ScottB on May 12, 2005 11:43 PMhey Scott,
fantastic series of posts!
NT Wright (whose work I am oversaturating in during my current courseload) is asserting that Christ's eschatological language was focused on the first century. Wouldn't it make sense that Jesus would speak relevant prohecy into his own time?
In "The Challenge of Jesus", Wright writes to the effect that should the church NOT look at the first century as the pinnacle of human history then we miss the point entirely. As I chew on it, I have to agree. It's just like the twentieth (and first) century to focus the whole of Jesus upon itself. Jesus spoke eschatology into the ears, and hearts, of those whom the beginning of the end of times would effect directly. The end time plan is salvation and not rapture. That should quiet the Left Behind-ology right there, of course it doesn't though.
He also presents (or represents) Schweitzer's view that Jesus ushered in an eschatological age that he himself did not see into completion and thus John writes in Revelation that his return will do so.
The apocalyptic language seems to be word pictures of dynamic Kingdom truth. If John retold Daniel to such an extent in his Revelation imagery, how could it be anything else?
Well, I guess that's a whole other can of worms, but your branding comment about taking supernature and twisting into the commercial is right on. Take Biblical language we don't really understand and use it to sell books and fill conferences. It neuters a greater message that I think is regenerating faster than you can say Left Behind 17 - Jason takes Manhattan.
Posted by radioreb on May 13, 2005 03:04 PMWright's take on Jesus is, I think, absolutely freeing. We read The Challenge of Jesus in one of my classes in the spring semester, and I thought the picture he paints is just amazing. It's funny and odd and sad all at once - we spend so much time in other parts of the scriptures that we don't bother to listen most closely to how Jesus himself understood the whole affair, when it's really his party, so to speak.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Posted by ScottB on May 15, 2005 01:24 AM