"Left Behind" and Presbyterian Eschatophobia

Anyone who has read best-selling author Steven Covey's The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People will remember that his second principle is "Begin with the end in mind." One must have a clear vision of where to end up before discerning the best strategies and tactics. I don't know where Covey came up with his second principle, but I suspect it came from the Bible.

From the Old Testament through the New Testament, the constant theme is that God offers hope of a future reality that will be more wonderful than anything we can imagine. Every tear will be wiped from our eyes, and the dwelling of God will be with humanity. We don't know exactly how we get there, but God created a covenant with us and wants us to trust him to bring it about. We are a people of the future living in the present.

I heard Craig Barnes preach once about this issue. He made the point that the future is uncertain for someone who does not know God and has no assurance of Christ. It is only the present that is certain. Consequently, we have a decided tendency to hang on to the present. Not so for the Christian. The future is the only certain thing. It is the present that is tenuous and uncertain. We live in the present in anticipation of the future. Furthermore, we are called to bring the future into the present by being God's faithful community ushering in the New Jerusalem. But do we mainline Presbyterians do this?

My friend Carol recently sent me the Spring 2005 issue of Insights: The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary. The topic for this issue is "Left Behind," referring to the mega-selling series of books by this title. The journal's articles deal with Dispensationalism and eschatology. All of the articles are excellent! One reflection, in particular, struck me. Kenda Creasy Dean wrote it. She reflects on her son's choice to attend a Young Life camp instead of a church mission trip. She examines the telos of a youth camp experience. (Telos means "end" or "purpose." Not to be confused with the planet in Star Wars.) Here are two paragraphs from her reflection:

Consequently, Christian youth events that have existential traction do not meander aimlessly. They aim for a conclusion, with everything structured to honor the event’s culminating moments. The “end time” of the event (ordinarily, the program for the last night’s worship service) ritualizes our understanding of the “end times” described by Christian theology. It is decisive. One chapter closes and another begins. Decisions are made, preparations ensue for a different world—the world that is Not-Camp. In the closing rituals of the last night of camp, we expect Jesus to come. We expect God to act. Furthermore, having had a foretaste of glory divine, young people are sent out from the religious camp or conference, like John of Patmos, as apostles of hope. In short, the condensed week of a summer youth camp or conference enacts an ordu salutis (order of salvation), not to manipulate God’s saving activity, but to dramatize it. Christians are story people, and every story—even God’s story with us on earth—has a final chapter. And what we do on the last night of camp says a lot about how we think the story ends.

This surprises us. Many of us aren’t even aware that we even have a governing eschatology, much less that we enact it with young people. “End time” rhetoric conjures up images of heaven, hell, rapture, and the Second Coming of Christ that have been treated as “the theological equivalent of Timbuktu” in the mainline Protestant church for most of the twentieth century, according to Mark Ralls, writing in Christian Century. “Like a lot of mainline Protestant pastors I know,” confessed Ralls, “I’m caught between honest belief and embarrassment.” Our way out has been to sidestep any overt discussion of eschatological issues altogether, leaving them to our more literally minded conservative Christian friends. We mainliners prefer transitions to endings, rehabilitation to judgment, regeneration to apocalyptism, phases to finality. But there is a cost to this. Our silence on the subject of eschatology, our reluctance to speak of God’s future for fear of boxing in God’s expansive grace, has the effect of muting the telos of Christian theology. Youth are thus left to conclude, quite understandably, that the church simply is not going anywhere.

Bingo! As I have been working on the Mission Work Plan Taskforce for the General Assembly Council, I have read through the early chapters of the Book of Order, looking for a statement of our telos. What I was struck by is that there really isn't a clear, explicit statement of our telos. Nearly everything is stated in terms of what we do, not what we accomplish. Even the Great Ends of the Church are actions that presume a telos. You can infer it from what is written, but it isn't stated. All through each of our governing structures, I see the same thing. There is much action with no end in mind.

Ask a Dispensational Fundamentalist (and a great many others) what a Christian's purpose is, and they will tell you it is to "save souls." Why? So that when we come to the end of time, we can live with God in heaven. Mainliners have typically been critical of this reductionist approach to eschatology. We are about what God is doing in the present. In fact, I think Dispensationalism is the only thing the Presbyterian Church has judged to be a heresy in the Twentieth Century. Nevertheless, you have to admit, Dispensationalist types know what they are trying to accomplish.

But ask Presbyterians what a Christian's purpose is, they will say something like "Love and worship God, do justice, and be a good person." Ask why, and the response you will usually get is a blank face. At best, "Because that is what the Church does." There is no telos. The telos is the action itself without conscious thought of the eschatological outcome. There is no bringing the future into the present because there is no concept of a compelling future to bring into the present! So what is our telos? It is almost as if to ask the question is to be suspected of introducing heresy. We have become eschatophobic.

I have a cure for this disorder. I will recommend to the General Assembly Council that we scrap the 2006 General Assembly and instead send our commissioners to a Young Life summer camp. I figure even a heretical Dispensational eschatology is better than none. Short of that, I suggest that it is time we ask if we have lost our way and need to rediscover the future we are to bring into the present. We must lose our eschatophobia if we genuinely expect to be the people of God.

(By the way, check out all the Insights articles. I found them to be very good.)

Comments

[larry]

Well said!!!!!

I especially endorse: "I will be making a recommendation to the General Assembly Council that we scrap the 2006 General Assembly and instead send our commissioners to a Young Life summer camp."

[rodger sellers]

Can I go? Please? Pick me, pick me! I'll even agree to be on work crew and spend the week in the pits back in the kitchen! (A familiar place that I'm pretty sure every minister (clergy all of us!)could benefit from!

Good thoughts.

RPS

[Rev. Toby L. Brown]

I've always preferred short telos statements:

"To know Christ and make him known."

Doesn't that say it all for the church?

Sanctification for the believers and evangelism to the rest, as we await God's completion of the "Creation Project".

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks you all! I have to be honest. I went to church camp a few times and did not like it all. However, in my teenage years I did get to go on some summer youth mission projects and really enjoyed those. I had not thought about that in terms that Dean mentioned but I am reflecting on what she said in terms of my own experiences.

And Rodger, the kitchen help will be great but the real question is how good are you with water ballons?

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks for chiming in Toby. I think the problem I see is that we mainliners live completely in the present. The danger is the tendency to "go native" with the culture of our times and become captive to the "eternal present." Instead, I think God is calling the Church to be a window into the future and point to the age to come. Christ came announcing the "acceptable year of the Lords favor." I think that was an eschatological announcement.

Said differently, God is the author of the grand drama that is unfolding in history. He invites us to actively participate with Him in the fashioning of the unfolding story. The key word is "active." I think of Philipians 2:12-13 "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." So you ask Paul which is it. Us doing the work or God doing the work? I think his answer would be "Yes!" As the body of Christ with Christ as the head we have our source and being in him. Christ is ushering in the Kingdom and it would seem that his animated body is the primary mode for the ushering.

I think "To know Christ and make him known" said alone runs the risk of turning salvation into "fire insurance" we obtain and then wait around for Jesus to come. Our only business becomes selling more "fire insurance." Paul tells us to be transformed and to be imiators of Christ. The Good News isn't just that I can get a "get out jail free card" for hell, but that a new world order is coming.

I am rambling. I have been in Louisville at a meeting all day and its midnight. So I have know idea if this makes any sense. I guess my summary point would be that the gospel is more than personal salvation and growth. We are saved to someone for mission. The mission is about active participation in God's transformation of all creation into the New Jerusalem.

[Rev. Toby L. Brown]

Don't worry, you don't ramble, just the conversation!
You're a postmillenialist, eh? I would like to be, but I am not always that optimistic about the future of the world, before the New Jerusalem arrives. I AM optimistic about God's sovereign care over the future, but as to whether or not we will have much to do about it (i.e.--the church growing and being victorious to usher in the finale, so to speak)I am unconvinced.
One more thing. "Making Christ known" really does include the transformative witness and mission of the church. How can we know Christ and NOT be involved in the work of making a better, more God-centered world?
I don't separate evangelism and disciple-making from mission and outreach. Anyway, I don't think we're so far apart on that one, just on the words to express it!
--Toby

[Michael Kruse]

I not a pre, post, or a millenialist. I am a Mazada Millenialist. I drive a 1998 Mazda Millenia to be precise **grin**

Seriously, I don't know what to make of the millenial question. I am willing to be persuaded. What I am convinced of is that salvation comes through Christ. But salvation is not just from something, it is to someone for mission. And the mission is to exhibit the future Kingdom in the present.

I also know that Jesus used images of the wheat and tares. I see tremendous good happening in the world and tremendous evil on the rise. Jesus speaks of judgement and ultimately a New Jerusalem. Does human existence improve or degrade until judgment? Does it trend in a more or less straight line toward one or the other? I have no clue. All I know is that we are called to live as if the Kingdom is here and exhibit the Kingdom that is to come.

I agree we are mostly talking about words and expressions. My concern is that the conservative side of the church has a tendency to "do salvation" and then sit on their hands in a "Jesus and me" attitude until Jesus comes. The liberal side of the church has a tendency to welcome everyone and anything to expand the kingdom but there with no eye toward the hard road of transformation. Neither ends of bringing the future into the present. I am merely looking for language that will make both uncomfortable with we are at.

[Neil]

I don't know about going the dispensational route. That's to big a price to pay! If we could just get a straight reading of revelation, a 'letter to the seven churches' and treat it as such we'ed be in great shape. Eugene Peterson has a gerat book on it, 'Reveresed Thunder' a must read on Revelation and Craig Koester has the best readable commentary.
If we Presbyterians could only get back to Westminster question 1 and glorify God we would be in great shape.

[Michael Kruse]

And I do hope it is understood that my suggestion of going the dispensational route was most decidedly tongue-in-cheek.

I too would recommend "Reversed Thunder." I was just thinking of going back an rereading it. Thanks for the Koester suggestion. I am not familiar with his commentary. I will check it out.

Westminster? Confessions? We still have those? **grin**

Q. 1 What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man's chief and higherst end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.

Kinda makes you think those guys were on to something.

[will spotts]

OK. I very much hesitate to say this, but I think get too hung up on the word "dispensationalist". The 1944 PCUS statement on the topic described a belief system that is clearly non-reformed. However, it did not describe the working belief system of most people I know who follow elements of that eschatological viewpoint.

Many people today are under the impression that the 1944 statement somehow commented on pre-millenial views in general or on any literal / predictive read of prophecy. This is clearly not the case. Honestly, I believe the intent was to discourage all pre-millenial views, but they were unable to do so and be academically honest.

I mention this because I tend toward a pre-millenial interpretation, but this is a discreet opinion -- not an article of faith. It is frequently said (particularly in the recent statements on Christian Zionism) that this view is pessimistic concerning the church. I do not believe that to be the case. It is pessimistic concerning the effectiveness of the church at creating a kingdom of heaven on earth. (Yes, even Christians who hold pre-millenial views would do what they could to improve the lives of their neighbors and communities, but the pessimism comes in the form of the view of unregenerate human nature -- it would sort of be a "man that corrupted Hadleyburg" view.)

On the other hand, the pre-millenial view is very optimistic in the fulfilling of the great commission. It insists that the gospel will be spread in every nation -- and will have those who respond to it in every nation.

There is (or should be) no justifiable separation between the changed life and salvation. Those who respond to the gospel, can have positive effects in their time and place. History demonstrates this -- Wesley and the slave trade, for example. However, history also demonstrates that Christianity seems to have had a devastating impact in other situations -- pogroms and the Inquisition, for example. I'm persuaded this is a result of Constantinianism -- the pursuit of political power and ambition instead of the great commission. Looking at the people instrumental in these devastating actions, I conclude that many were intending good results. They may, for all I know, have been legitimate Christians -- who even, in the beginning, meant well.

[Michael Kruse]

I agree, Will. Dispensationalism is a theological interpretive system. Sharing one or more of its interpretations does not make some one a Dispensationalist. The problem is that it is the dominant comprehensive eschatological framework. People often believe in the rapture, pre-millennialism, the re-establishment of Israel as a state not because they are Dispensationalists per se, but because there is an absence of any other clearly articulated framework.

I have heard pastors disparage the rapture, for instance, and then they are asked what the alternative explanation is. My experience is that they are either unwilling or unable to articulate a coherent eschatology. Or maybe they are just afraid to cross a popular perspective. Whatever the case, the end result is that being Dispensational equates to believing in eschatology and opposition equates to not eschatology. These are the only choices. I know this a bit exaggerated but as this stuff works its way out in the daily lives of believers I think there is a lot of truth in this.

I just read “The Drama of Scripture” where the authors write “Yet David Lawrence reminds us that fixing our attention on such things [time of Christ’s return, the millennium, the rapture, the final judgment, the antichrist, and the tribulation] is bit like becoming obsessed with the nature, strength, and frequency of the birth pangs when we should be thinking about the baby!”

I am convinced that Jesus will return, that the dead will rise, we will be judged, and the new creation will begin. Much of this other stuff is useless in my estimation.

[Zac]

A chiropractor can do to lessen your pain and strengthen your muscle tissues chiropractic treatment can often help to increase your mobility
so you don't need any prescription. It does not claim however to
treat infections or diseases but only chiropractor greenpoint uses the
body's homeostatic ability ability to maintain the license, continue the educational classes.

The muscles and discs that are injured. The pain can stay with you for a few days of treatment before you experience the chiropractor greenpoint recovering benefits of
the cream.