Ignore
Boycott Zondervan
Give it the DaVinci Code Treatment?
I have a feeling that ignore is the only reasonable course of action at this time. I managed to ignore Left Behind quite successfully.

“The Patriots”? So now if we disagree with LaHaye’s interpretation, we’re un-American? Give me a break.
I wish we could ignore it, but I’m betting these books will be in just as many church libraries as the Left Behind series.

My first suggestion for LaHaye is to spend one year reading Jewish pseudepigrapha of an apocalyptic nature; then one year reading hermeneutics and how prophetic language works. If he doesn’t have that much time, I’d have him read D. Brent Sandy’s book (Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic
).

What to do…….weep…..and continue to tell a better story.

Sorry, I’m not into pulp fiction.

It’s time to dig up N.T. Wright’s pithy little article “Farewell to the Rapture.” http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm
Or we could become creative and start writing our own end times books—maybe combine the end times framework with some Amish romance. That’d be a kicker!

To or not to (ignore)? To (ignore).

Maybe send an email to Zondervan, like the one I just sent:
Zondervan,
I just want to voice my deep disappointment that Zondervan has chosen to publish ‘Edge of the Apocalypse.’ I have spent the last year living in the Middle East and have seen the real life impact of this type of end times, zionist theology in Israel/Palestine. It often leads to a hatred of Arabs (who are considered terrorists instead of people whom God loves deeply and longs to reach) and to a lack of concern for justice and righteousness on the part of Israelis. Generally people who buy into this shoddy theology don’t follow Christ’s command for us to be ‘peacemakers’ and instead look for signs of war and relish in it because they believe it will bring Christ’s coming. I would hope in the future that Zondervan would choose to publish books with more theological integrity which will challenge the church to seek justice, to have mercy and to walk humbly with our God.

Scott, I love the suggestion to read the Pseudepigrapha. The Apocalyptic Imagination or my former prof’s book Revelation for Dummies (no offense intended here, that’s what the book is called) may be in order too. Lahaye may even give up because he’ll realize that he can’t top some of that stuff in the Pseudepigrapha.
I’m a bit concerned about the way his book will be pulled in part from today’s headlines and uncritically adopt a militaristic patriotism that is fused with Christianity.
I think we can agree on two things here. One: This book probably won’t do all that much to build up the church or to clarify the teachings of scripture. Two: Whatever we do in response, should build up the church and clarify the teachings of scripture.

I don’t know. It almost seems too crass to ignore. I’d say confront.

when i hear the name of Tim LaHaye, i just think back to the conversation at yale with Miroslav Volf.
he was asked what he thinks of when he hears the names of different christian figures.
when Tony Jones asked him about Tim LaHaye, he laughed and said “machine gun christianity”.
nuff said.

This makes me sick. As if LaHaye hasn’t made enough money already (I’m guessing multi-millions) for making a mockery of biblical prophecy and giving any sort of dispensationalism a bad name, now he has to do this and we get more whacko doom & gloom stuff.
Left Behind was a joke and did much more harm for Christianity than good (gross misunderstanding of prophecy, misreading the Bible, increased nationalism, etc.). LaHaye would be doing a favor to Christianity if he just retires and stops writing. I want to go and vomit now & I hope readers will ignore this. Unfortunately that will probably not happen with the way the Left Behind series sold.
DON’T READ THIS JUNK! THERE’S NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT IT

And shame on Zondervan for publishing this. This goes to show you how there more concerned with profit than with publishing truth and furthering the kingdom of God. Way to sell out to the world.

This deeply saddens me. At the beginning of this post I thought, ‘he’s's messing with us, this is a SNL or Colbert Report skit”. But, alas, it is true.
Thanks Thom – I hadn’t seen that article.
Thanks Debbie – Important words, and experiences I also live with working with our Dept of Defense.
It won’t be possible to ignore it in my world. The left behind series defines Evangelical Christianity in the circles of people who are working for economic, social and environmental sustainability and justice. They see Christianilty as voting and working against justice because of our faith. They see us the same way we see Muslim extremists waging jihad on behalf of their faith. I spend most of my time in inter-faith dialogues on sustainability fighting the frameworks of this eschatology.
This my push me to need to leave the word evangelical. I am struck by Nathan bringing up Miroslav’s work – I was there and remember that response. I think this is a call to embrace the ‘other’, but if this continues to define evangelicalism, I don’t stand on the same green at all!!

Wait, so how many ways can the world end?

Response? That hardly seems like a tolerant, post-modern response. It almost sounds like you know your interpretation is correct and his is wrong.
You buy or you don’t buy it. I don’t see how your philosophy gives you any other choice.

I ignored the left behind series … shouldn’t be too hard to do the same with this one.

500,000 copies in the initial print run? That’s a lot of toilet paper!

LaHaye’s books paint the Christian faith as a belief in redemptive violence and political idolatry.
If you have no problem with that being served up as the faith then I guess ignore it. But millions won’t, including many impressionable teen males who eat that stuff up (it’s really not much different that the typical episode of ’24′ on FOX, is it?).

A. If the writing is on par with “The Left Behind” series, that is enough to damn it. Tim LaHaye is no author. He lacks the ability to write a believable plot, create multi-dimensional characters which behave in a believable manner in a believable world or the ability to interpret/exegete scripture and translate it into believable fiction which does not cause his brothers and sisters to stumble.
B. I fail to understand why the Christian community continues to flock to substandard work as if it were the Second Coming itself. They do it with music, with books, with movies and with art in general … as long as it belongs to the Christian ghetto it is considered good, no matter what. That’s silly and does everyone a disservice. Our work should be better than what is in the world, not worse.

i certainly am no fan of lahaye, or feeling like every time that i delve into eschatology in any way at my church that i have to in some way answer for not subscribing to a dispenstational premillennial view.
but at the same time, isn’t there something to be said for allowing for the big tent of evangelicalism?
i was thinking of a post you wrote earlier this year on the neo-reformed
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/02/who-are-the-neoreformed.html
is the issue with lahaye that we have that we don’t agree with his theology and the way that it’s presented, or that it’s creating divisiveness?
i think his theology is whacked, but i’m not going to take up a beef with zondervan over it. producing another terrible book that in some way is supposed to be a good christian novel…that i can get worked up about.

As a pastor I cannot ignore it as folks in my congregation will be reading it. I, like many who have commented, believe the eschatology of The Left Behind Series is most unbiblical, which is why I must engage with those I encounter who are reading it. And I must do it in a respectful way. Pastors and scholars who do not like this stuff can be so smugly self-righteous in denouncing it that it is no wonder those in the pews won’t even approach them to find out what those with some expertise think. They don’t want to be put down and made to feel like idiots. As a pastor I see these kinds of things as opportunities to do educational ministry. I am currently teaching a class on Revelation and when anyone brings up The Left Behind series I do not roll my eyes in disgust. I respond in the context of respect and civility. to do otherwise would be one sure-fire way to drive people out of the class.
I have found that if I deal with subjects like these respectfully without indicating that anyone attracted to this stuff is a moron, people will consider that there may indeed be alternatives.
One question we should ask, once we are through being so morally outraged that Zondervan would even consider publishing this material (why is anyone surprised?) is why is no one offering a biblically legitimate and theologically sound alternative that is readable and engaging? N.T. Wright comes the closest, but there is still plenty of room, I think, to offer something that people in the pews will read.
And frankly, I am not which is worse– The unbiblical eschatology of The Left Behind Series or Marcus Borg’s miniaturization of Jesus.

Sonja-
I’m not sure your argument (B) holds water anymore. Christian music has come a long way. It’s not the Christians that accept subpar work, it is America that does. We have adults that love Harry Potter, Twilight and the truly dreadful DaVinci Code for pete’s sake. It only makes sense that Christians will gobble up poorly written literature, because we as American’s eat it up.
I am a pre-mill pre-trib dispensationalist and I will not read anything from LaHaye either. What I hate is that I’m always having to defend my own theological stance in light of his.

1. Remember that Zondervan is now owned by Rupert Murdoch.
2. Read iMonk’s blog today, quoting the Patrol Magazine editorial.
3. For myself, ignore, just as LB.
4. ****It is imperative that we tell a better story.****
Dana

It’s just a shame that we’ll have to pay attention to it because so many Christians will read it instead of leaving it where it belongs: on the shelf. Or attached to the toilet paper roll.

Perhaps someone could respond by writing an alternative set of “end-time” fiction?
Maybe one in which Western capitalism comes under God’s judgment. The landless poor, the multitude of peasants whose food-producing land has been turned over to growing our tea, coffee, and tobacco could be recipients of blessing.
Maybe the central characters could be a Palestinian who lost her family to an Israeli missile, a Mexican illegal working in LA, a peasant farmer in Cameroon (they don’t all play soccer – some of them farm for 50c a week), an indigenous Australian still mourning their dislocation from the land, and (since it will be set in the “near future”) several hundred million in India wondering where their rice will now come from as the Ganga dries up due to climate change.
I’m sure a it would be a hit…

Allan, I like your response.

Just shoot me now…

Someone needs to fight fire with fire. Story telling is the way into the national and global consciousness. LaHaye has found a way to do that. We need more story tellers who love the truth.

Well said, Allan @22.
“I have found that if I deal with subjects like these respectfully without indicating that anyone attracted to this stuff is a moron, people will consider that there may indeed be alternatives.”

One question we should ask, once we are through being so morally outraged that Zondervan would even consider publishing this material (why is anyone surprised?) is why is no one offering a biblically legitimate and theologically sound alternative that is readable and engaging? N.T. Wright comes the closest, but there is still plenty of room, I think, to offer something that people in the pews will read.

It’s unfortunately because the “end-times” story laid out by those of us who are partial preterists/amillenialists/whatever is rather *boring* from the perspective of writing a series of “thriller” novels. By “boring” I mean to the audience that the books are targeted at, not in and of itself. There is nothing more thrilling and exciting than to think of the day when Jesus returns to set everything right.
However, it doesn’t make for a good novel (not that Left Behind really was a good novel series).

Joseph (17) -
I had no problem ignoring the Left Behind series either. The problem for me is that, as a youth pastor, sadly many of my teenagers’ first exposure to Bible reading begins with Revelation and Left Behind becomes their interpretive framework. This is an awful first step in one’s study of the Scriptures. Awful! And I am left to either (1) try undo the damage and risk getting LaHaye-loving parents mad at me for teaching what they’d call more “liberal” non-literal views of the Bible or (2) I can just hold my tongue, weep silently and pray for Tim LaHaye’s premature rapture.
I just realized i have some pent up emotions on this topic. Can you tell? =) I’m curious: How do other pastors/youth pastors navigate conversations with students/congregants in the LaHaye fan club?

I wonder if Lifeway stores will put a “Discernment Warning” on it!?!
Not counting on it …

Allen, thank you for your post. I hope that more of us can take on the patience and respect that is needed to help people through this sort of stuff. You obviously have a good and humble heart! And I do think that there is a dire need for an alternative to these sorts of narratives. I’m sure that there are a good number of people who adhere to terrible “Left Behind” theology because they are unaware of any alternative interpretations.

So I gather that many people here do not believe in a dispensational pre-millennial view.
Which is one of many views concerning the end times.
That’s okay that you aren’t into it.
I’m sure your conclusion is the right one.
However, may I offer – again – that this is one of the views of the end times.
And being such, why are we frustrated with it being presented as an option?
Granted, when I teach on this topic, I try to cover them all. It seems like Mr Lahaye covers his. I’m guessing many of you may cover yours in conversation.
I wonder, though…
You know how Jesus surprised everyone who was theologically sharp by coming to earth the way He did?
I wonder if He’ll surprise us yet again.
So many of us look for Jesus conversations in movies, be it ambiguous like The Matrix, or direct like The Passion of the Christ. Seems like great conversation has come about through such things.
Maybe the same could be true of this series?

How disheartening this is. As someone speaking from a Left Behind generation, how much more irresponsible can Zondervan possibly be? To blend together Patriotism and Christianity in such away is perverse. In a time where there is tension between different systems of belief and dialogue is essential, this is what is going to be the most visible face of Christianity? I feel that this is too big to big to ignore.

John, You make an excellent point. There appears to be something less thrilling about the more credible interpretations of Revelation. At the same time, I believe that there had to be some wonderful scholar who is able to write something interesting in novel-like fashion. Perhaps one might start a series that begins with the trying times of a church in Asia Minor, say Ephesus, and its experience under persecution and how the arrival of a scroll containing a great vision, gives that church hope in the midst of despair.
I don’t know… I am thinking outloud here. Surely someone is able to unlock the meaning of this scroll in dramatic fashion.

Tony,
I think most of us are so frustrated by it because it presents a view of the world and of Jesus’ return that is decidedly dark. As I see it, the message of Biblical prophecy is that one day Jesus will come back to set everything right and create new heavens and new earth in which his resurrected people will reside. Evil will be finally stamped out. Death will have lost its sting forever.
As such, we look forward to his coming by living out this new creation in the present. We build Christian schools, hospitals, homeless shelters and soup kitchens. We strive to live personal lives in keeping with the fact that we have been buried with Jesus in baptism and raised again (Romans 6). We do this because the Kingdom of God has already arrived with the coming, death, and resurrection of Jesus and we are now awaiting the day that he comes to complete this work.
The Left Behind series paints a picture where we Christians revel in the deteriorating state of the world because it means we’re getting ever closer to the day when Jesus comes to snatch us out of it. Then later Jesus will finally destroy it and take us away to be somewhere else. This eschatology basically encourages me to not care a whit with what is happening to the world and the people in it because Jesus is coming soon to smite everything anyway, so long as I make sure I don’t get “left behind.”
The first picture is Biblical (no matter how you flesh out the particulars), and it calls us to live in the finished work of Christ now. The second picture isn’t and it calls us away from concern about the very world Jesus has come to redeem.

Allan, I too like your response. I spend most of my time in the world outside of the Church, and have seen the extreme damage of this story, so I do roll my eyes. I have no patience for the conversation, so I am VERY grateful for you and others who are there to have the conversations. I will not have an audience with our brethren who are afraid to let go of what they have learned as Gospel Truth. You are so right, they will leave the room.
My audience is with those who are non-believers who read these books as an understanding of Christianity and why Christians “vote against social and environmental justice”, and for war against other beliefs. I have heard that quote many times. I am coaching an executive who is Jewish and could not understand why the evangelicals were so in line with the destruction of our environment. So he was told to read the Left Behind series to understand our theology. Like you Jeremy, I work to unravel this thinking all the time and try to tell alternative stories of redemption. I also have a lot of emotion around it.
Allan, Dana, Dave and others – I completely agree!! Storytelling and pictures are essential to the collective visions of a people. Great Theologians need to create new visions and pictures. It is starting, but maybe this will catalyze more to write.
2 months ago a friend lent me Larry Norman’s “In Another Land”. When I was in High School our youth group had it’s own house a woman had willed to us (any LJPC Sunhouse’rs reading?), and we played that album all the time. I have not heard it for 30 years, and I could sing every song word for word. I have been to seminary since, and I realized all the pictures I carry for the Book of Revelation (even though I don’t agree with them anymore!) are from the music I heard as a child. I never read Late Great Planet Earth, but I listened to Norman. I still see those pictures when I read Rev. We need the gift of new pictures, new art, new stories!!! (or old ones actually)

@Allan #36:
There was one type of novel like that a few years back (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Disciple-Hank-Hanegraaff/dp/0842384375), written from a preterist/historical standpoint. I don’t know if it is a continuing series or not, but it was written to offer an alternative to the LB series and LaHaye’s theology. Interestingly, it was also published by Tyndale House (like LB).

LaHaye has been telling his story well with intrigue. The problem is the more faithful telling of the story cant be done with ease. So far no one has told a story about the kingdom of God as well(at least as captivating) as LaHaye since Tolkien and Lewis. People with the gift of writing have to start stepping up and write better than LaHaye and infuse better theology.

Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins and as such is interested in its profits. LaHaye will sell books — that his eschatology is garbage and even dangerous, is irrelevant!
So, what should be done? I say, ignore him!

Since the End is so near, I’m sure that LaHaye will contribute all his profits to ministries that serve the poor, hungry, and oppressed. Surely he won’t need them for his retirement fund since he won’t have any time for retirement.

It’s hard. On one hand I would love for more progressive Christians to stand up and offer a rebuttal or more sound exegesis and commentary. On the other hand, if we were to stand up, do we add to unbeliever’s and babes confusion about whose right? But, if we don’t speak up, we risk these same individuals being led astray. Maybe if the authors would welcome sound, civilized debate over these issues that could be a start.

I have cringed upon reading rebuttals to emerging and postmodern thinking by the writers such as Piper or MacArthur who do not seem interested in being fair to their opponent and do seem interesting in supposing wrong motives behind the authors. Their tone and attitude and lack of respect and charity to their opponents have too often left a bitter taste.
My personal reaction to the comments I am reading here is that many comments here feel like uncharitable mocking and lumping all adherents of system together and looking for the worst examples, and a lack of effort to be fair to any nuance of the system or contrary explanations. If all I knew about dispys was what I read here, I would assume they all half-desire to nuke the world, refuse to help make anything better in this world, and wear white robes and stand on a hill and wait for the rapture.
Maybe I’m being oversensitive. I am not defending LaHaye. I don’t read his books. Maybe he and the publisher deserves their treatment here. But the tone strikes me as a double standard. I don’t care for it when certain people imply that the Nooma videos are a false gospel sending people to hell and Rob Bell is only in it for the money. Or when people refuse to let William Young tell a story in The Shack without making similar accusations. Again, maybe I’m overreacting but it seems to me that if you replace LaHaye with Rob Bell or William Young or even Dan Brown and read the tone of the comments here as though against those authors – I think many people in the JesusCreed community would wince if the shoe were on the other foot. Aren’t gentleness and respect called for, even when disagreeing with a dispy author of “popular” novels?
(FWIW – I completely agree that Sandy’s Plowshares and Pruning Hooks is a better use of time)

Matt, thanks for your observations. I asked a question on FB why folks expressed themselves as they did — say on this post — because it took me a bit by surprise. But I have to say that, at the hermeneutical level and after 15 years of teaching the Bible to college students with some lectures and reading on prophets and apocalyptic and my own work on Jesus’ vision of the future, I have little patience for the literalism of LaHaye and the certaintist approach to what will happen in the future. I can’t sit idly by with this stuff, not only because I was first exposed to this stuff in about 1971 but because it takes folks’ minds and attentions away from the inner core of eschatological language and turns them into hunters for “when will this occur” instead of the bigger picture.
Furthermore, I find very little sensitivity to the moral issues at work in literal reading of prophetic language, not the least of which is the thirst for blood or, worse yet, the seeming lack of care about that kind of language.
I could go on … but I do agree there is some mocking we don’t need.

Allan #22
Well said. The church has done a very poor job at dealing with eschatology. We have created a vacuum where this stuff rushes in to fill it up. Then we spend all our time bemoaning the stuff that emerges. The answer is less about fighting this stuff than discerning the truth and teaching it well.

I just can’t believe the material out there and how intelligent Christians are misled and affected by it. It even affects how people view the world, the news, the United States, Israel, etc., etc. I certainly agree with and appreciate Allan Bevere’s thoughts here, and Scot’s. We need both good teaching and some good imagination from that. But the LaHaye narrative of “last times” has a hold on people; it’s a powerful one evidently. It has a long history and won’t easily die. So we have to do what Michael here just said.

Matt, I too thank you for your observations, and Scot for your reply to them. I’ve followed the comments all day, and have been a little taken aback. I come from a tradition that is hand-in-glove with LaHaye, though over time I have become quite discouraged with our “certainist” approach, and highly disenchanted with our vitriol towards others who are not of our ilk. Today we have sounded much like my denomination sounds when they speak or Rob Bell, Paul Young, or even Rick Warren — and that has nothing to do with eschatology.
Can we make a constructive turn? We know how we feel about LaHaye’s book deal; it is obvious how we feel about LaHaye’s eschatology. So, for those of us who have been of a dispensational persuasion for so long that we didn’t even know we were dispys, what would you suggest we consider? Can we have any effect towards what we believe is the wrong-headed (but right-hearted!?!) message of LaHaye and company? I’ve known for some time we could be wrong, I’ve even begun to wonder if we are wrong. Just being told we’re ignorant will have about the same effect as the gripers have with Bell, Young and Warren. I’ve been here almost since the beginning, I believe we’re better than this — and I don’t just mean in gentleness and respect. We’re better than this in dialoguing towards a productive and Jesus Creed-like end.

John (#37) – Thanks for the feedback, and I am with you in the proactive living out and revealing of the Kingdom of God. In many ways as you have mentioned, I fall as well.
However, I don’t believe that I know I’m 100% right about the way I capture the end times. And that is my point – to deny Lahaye’s voice is to stand around the same cross and say, “I don’t care what you see from your perspective.” Granted, there are implications to the size of audience he has reading his books, but I have read some of them as well and didn’t walk away thinking “I should just take my hands off of revealing God to this world because one fine day Jesus will come and I’ll fly away.”
Quite the opposite, in fact.

Your Name, thanks much for this. I want to think on this … and that is why I wrote this post. I wanted to know what folks think a good response would entail.

I apologize for the accidental anonymity. Your Name is my name.

MatthewS and Terry,
I agree with much of your comments. And these same concerns extend to many other topics of discussion as well. Tone and civility are hard disciplines to master. This particular issue of eschatology has never much concerned me either way – but ridicule and derision are not productive approaches on any real level on any topic. Yet it is a trap far too easy to enter.
Allan’s observations and approach is dead on – these topics and the persons must be dealt with respectfully.
But if I can combine topics from different threads … the push for “political correctness” far from being moral cowardice, has its roots in this insistence on respect of persons. (Now the concept is abused and turned in unfortunate directions itself – but the root is here.) We should always use language in ways to make a point but minimize unnecessary offense and avoid stereotype judgments of persons and ideas. Engage at an ontological level – not a rhetorical level. Treat and speak of people with respect because language is not harmless – it sways crowds and hurts people.

While I agree with others here that civil discourse is essential, I think the challenge is to make sure that in our civil response we don’t end up inadvertently intimating that this really is just a friendly debate amongst brothers and sister. Let’s be clear: this kind of theology is dangerous and destructive. When I hear people saying things like: “Hey, live and let live, its just one of several valid interpretations” I find myself growing anything but civil inside. In my mind its only when we live cloistered, uninvolved Christian lives that we can develop the kind of “thick skin” that could accept this kind of stuff as potentially valid. Not only is the literalism unsophisticated, even childish, but, much more importantly, it brushes over what amounts to a callous attitude towards the sanctity of human life and well-being.

my response… put in a social distortion CD and turn it up loud — more realism in a social d CD than in those books…

I am not a LaHaye fan (have not and will not be reading his books), but I too am amazed by the reaction in these comments. I agree with ChrisB, MatthewS, and others in that regard.
I wonder if this same intensity would be used for someone who did not hold to an orthodox faith. Have we seen this same level of outcry over the Cox book that RJS is posting on?
Or is it because this is an in-house (Christianity) issue? Is this how we show our love for our brothers/sisters in the faith?

More upset over LaHaye’s view of future events than Tony Jones embracing of gay unions? More upset over pre-trib fiction than Greg Boyd’s flirtations with open theism and radical understanding of developments in the Constantinian era or his radical accusations that conservatives only care about power over others.
I guess that does it for me. I now truly know who folks are at Jesus Creed.

Dan,
The last simply isn’t fair. There are a wide variety of folks here with different views. There is a leaning (and actually it isn’t my way on many of these issues) and certainly people express themselves thoughtlessly on occasion.
What is the right approach to moderation then? I tend to think it is to try to engage in conversation – not to “take my ball and go home” so to speak.

I am fascinated by the flurry of responses that this post generated.
I certainly agree with those who recommend a civil response in any case (WWJD).
What is the purpose of fiction? Most commonly it seems to be entertainment. Perhaps, in special cases it can have additional benefits (historical, moral, etc.), but there is no guarantee.
I think it is safe to say that anyone launching such a ?series? is likely to be trying to generate ?fame and fortune?.
I would come down on the side of ignoring this because it seems to me that it is unlikely that Dr. LaHaye will be able to do any more damage that the original series already did.

Shame on Zondervan? Personally I’m glad Zondervan is publishing this. Before we get too critical of Zondervan for agreeing to publish LaHaye let’s not forget that many in Evangelicalism say the exact same things whenever Zondervan publishes another Rob Bell (or any post-con/emerging author). Zondervan is in business to publish books, not to decide who’s theology is worth publishing.

Several observations:
1. Many of us felt relieved when the LB series ran its course. We were glad that was over with.
2. Now, we hear that another series of tabloid eschatology is coming out from Zondervan. A double whamie. I am a MBI and Dallas Seminary grad and I was marinated in dispensational eschatology. I can call it tabloid theology because I believe that is what is it and has undeniably become. After 30 years of pastoral ministry I am hard pressed to find any redemptive value in it. It distorts so many features of biblical theology and ecclesial responsibility.
3. Alternative eschatological viewpoints face a massive challenge to edge out the prevailing dispensational hold on the popular mind.
4. We need scholars and pastors who can make other-than-Rapture, Tribulation, Millennium-views workable for everyday Christians. But even in saying this, we fall to the assumption in dispensational eschatology…that it has to tease us, puzzle us so that we become diviners of the times and identifyers of the ever elusive anti-christ. This is not the purpose of eschatology and we waste our time competing with fantasy.

Good one John.

some thoughts:
1. i think that there will always be a stronger reaction to the “dominant” perspective on any given issue–the one that holds “power”(perceived or real) over our community. Thus the strength of opinion about LaHaye.
2. we also see the fruit of the “pragmatic” impulse in American theology that has characterized it from almost the beginning:
sophisticated and nuanced readings of difficult texts just tend not to be in the bandwidth of the average church’s learning curve.
therefore, the easier, linear reading of Revelation without a real regard for the genre, and the implications for a responsible hermeneutic, ends up as the popular eschatology of our day.

I’m with Allan on this. As much as I would hope otherwise the folks in the pews are going to read this stuff. And I try to use that as a teaching moment. At the same time I like what John wrote too. We need to present something else when we preach and teach texts that speak about eschatology. Our folks need to know there are alternatives to LaHaye, et al.

As a daily reader of this blog, one begins to imagine themselves in a room full of familiar friends who sense we have a common appreciation for and understanding of thoughtful, tested biblical hermeneutics. I feel Jesus Creed’s signature strength is it’s scholarly-ness, charitableness and rigorous commitment to the Bible. This is perhaps also this blog’s sweet tooth — and when aggravated will provoke uncharacteristically impassioned responses.
Thus, I am not surprised that Jesus Creeders can discuss politics, ethics, economics, ministry and other serious topics in a very civil manner daily but Tim LaHaye’s distortion of the biblical text sends many of us otherwise self-composed readers in a fury. Especially if, as I tend to imagine as I read here, I am in a room full of friends of whom many share my non-dispensational eschatology.
For non-regular readers, I would just like to say this outpour of sarcastic remarks and harsh rhetoric is rare here. That is why I so appreciate the Jesus Creed community. But it is interesting to note what truly gets under the skin of many folks hanging out at Jesus Creed — myself included.
Thank you Allan and others who bit their lip and offered more constructive, mature responses than myself (#28 – “Just shoot me now…”) and others. Please forgive me. For personal penance perhaps I will make myself read the new series after all…. ;-P
Peace.

Wow! Don’t touch my escatology! I loved and preached Hal Lindsey in college — grew up not knowing there was another view until by mid-twenty’s. I gradually came to see the emptiness and bad fruit of chasing headlines and trying to make them fit with the Prophets. Now I’m a “pan-millinialist”. I know that God is in control and that the end will pan out the way he intends. It’s not going to look exactly like anyone’s scenario. If you do soom deep research on LaHaye’s background (Wickipedia), you’ll get some idea of where he’s coming from. That probably explains but doesn’t justify villifying him. It’s also pretty clear that he won’t be changing his escatology anytime soon. He has been entrenched there for well over half a century. But he will be fortunate to see his new series to an end — he will be 84 when the first book is released. This guy is like the energizer bunny of conspiricy theories (he believes in the Illuminati), right wing politics (he was Jack Kemp’s campaign manager in his 80′s presidiential run) and pre-trib rapture theology (he has estabilshed a research center on the subject). He is very generous with his millions. He has given millions to conservative Christian universities and causes he believes in. I guess his escatology will be correct and biblical on the same day the rest of ours will be — the day of the second coming — or at least shortly thereafter. Btw, I didn’t read LB and don’t plan to read this one either. But I agree that we should push back with better stories and by engaging our escatological study from the scriptures and historic viewpoints rather than the evening news headlines. I’ll stick with “The Shack”! OK, I’m out of here with that last one…

Where eschatology is concerned, I’m a “creedalist”: “He will come again to judge both the living and the dead, and His kingdom shall have no end.”
For a well presented different understanding of eschatology that isn’t taken from today’s headlines and tabloids (as mentioned so accurately above), I recommend “Last Days Madness” by Gary DeMar.

Forgive the long comment, please.
Two of the underlying assumptions in many of the comments have been (1) there is something at stake in talking about eschatology the right way and (2) there is something at stake in convincing large groups of people, especially Christian laity, to to talk about eschatology the right way. Perhaps people are just expressing annoyance, but I wonder how those who express a high level of frustration, anger, etc. with this would explain what exactly is at stake? And why is it important to convince large groups of people? I can anticipate at least some of the answers to my first question, and I don’t know if there are good answers to the second (I explain why below). To the first, people might say, practices of speech shape the way we approach other types of practices. (I have an aunt, for example, who refuses to recycle because God is going to destroy the earth anyway.) Perhaps, however, the best way to resolve this problem is not to attack/try to reform practices of speech about the end times, but rather imaginatively and creatively to encourage a range of other practices of speech, giving, engagement, etc. My priest quoted Fred Craddock in her sermon today, who said something like “perhaps the reason we’re so interested in the second coming is because we’re disappointed with the first one”. Maybe the solution is not to fix irresponsible understandings of the second coming (the popular Christian imagination throughout the history of the church has been similarly crude, and often far less educated than our own day. and this type of irresponsible, alarmist chialism is nothing new–think of the eschatological views of Joachim of Fiore or Thomas Munzer or the Montanists). Maybe a better pastoral way is to encourage practices of speech and living through preaching and other means that engage more directly the heart of Christian belief. My parents, for example, attend an evangelical mega church in Milwaukee, and their recent “harvestfest” encouraged them to think better about issues of global poverty, etc. I think on the whole it was effective. I wonder if this type of approach–engaging what is thought to be at stake more directly and not through correcting end times beliefs–would be better and more effective, even more faithful to the gospel, over the long term. Who knows, it may even give people real things to care about so that they stop paying attention to Tim LaHaye?
I am an academic theologian who is not primarily engaged in the congregation, and I attend a lefty episcopal church, the problems of which are very different than in evangelicalism (though not wholly different, as perhaps both are shaped profoundly by a liberal or neo-liberal political economy), so I’m not in the best position to offer evangelicals pastoral advice. It’s just a thought I had while reading your comments.

Sean @68,
I think your suggestion that we should “encourage practices of speech and living through preaching and other means that engage more directly the heart of Christian belief” has much merit. So does your question, “What’s at stake?”
Answering only for myself, what is at stake is how we understand who God is and what God is up to, and also what Christians have believed since the beginning. That’s where my questions take me.
I believed the dispensationalist scenario for a time, until I found out that it is no more than 175 years old.
Who is God? For the answer to this, we must start with the Gospels. Does Jesus reveal God to be the kind of God who revels in destroying his enemies? No, but much rather he told us to love our enemies, and that is the way we are to be perfect just like the Heavenly Father, who sends the sun and the rain on the righteous and unrighteous alike. There’s more to this, but not very much more…
And what is God up to? Really up to with humans and everything else? I think disp. logic leads to the conclusion that everything has been so spoiled that God has to start creating all over, except for the disembodied souls God has whisked away; therefore, satan wins. I don’t think the enemy wins. I think the picture scripture paints is much more phenomenally glorious than that. God isn’t about destruction; God is about redemption and life because God is love.
People can’t be forced to believe anything, and there are lots of folks, including educated ones, who think that to depart from the disp. view is to not be “biblical”. I’m not sure about all the reasons we got to this point, and I’m not sure that we need to have debates, but I do think we need to kindly point out what the heart of Christian belief is (incarnation/death/resurrection of Jesus who will come to judge the living and the dead and whose kingdom will have no end) and see if we can have some direct engagement and discussion. It ain’t gonna be easy. Not long ago I was in the grocery store and had a conversation with a woman, a dentist’s wife and a bright person herself, with whom I used to go to church. She was happy to see me, asked about my children, etc. She was all excited about a certain bible study series that was featuring Revelation; she went on about the antichrist/rapture/etc. When I said I believed Revelation was written mainly to encourage Christians who were facing persecution, and that I didn’t think it was a time line, she could not get to the rest of her shopping fast enough. Didn’t even say goodbye. It was spooky.
Respect and civility are definitely essential to the discussion, and I apologize if I have been disrespectful or uncivil here. I haven’t seen any personal attack on Tim LaHaye in the comments; perhaps I’m just obtuse. I do think the ultimate issues are indeed bigger and deeper than whether someone is “pre” or “mid” or “post”. I’m with Scot; there are actually some serious things at stake.
We need to be able to tell another story.
Dana

Related to Dana’s post above, I’ve seen people positively giddy as they describe God whisking them away while billions await a torturous demise. I’m not exaggerating. Giddy would be the most accurate term to use. Perhaps even gleeful?
Of course, if we’re honest, this has a lot to do with the human tendency to want to think of ourselves as in the RIGHT minority – the one that gets vindicated while everyone else gets their due.
We like to be right. We like to think we’re special. We assume we’re on God’s side, or, perhaps even… that He’s on ours.
Like I said earlier, this is dangerous and destructive theology.

Has anyone read Michael O’Brien’s Father Abraham: An Apocalypse? If so, what did you think?

I think they want to sell books, and will write a narrative around whatever theology generates the most interest

I’m a bit late to this, and probably really shouldn’t chime in at all, as I probably don’t have much new to contribute, but here goes….
I agree with the need for civil discourse, even against works like LaHaye’s. Part of the problem for me is that I also agree with the poster who points out how absolutely dangerous the Left Behind series (and works like it) has been to the reputation of Christianity. As such, it must be fought.
But, how to do it? Personally, I don’t feel that I know enough to effectively combat this situation. It’s not that I’m a biblical illiterate. I certainly feel that I know enough to reason out why it’s bad prophesy, and why it’s dangerous. But to keep up the debate, and to continue to do so in a civil manner, against an unrelenting onslaught of people who accept the authority of LaHaye and those like him, even in the face of reason, and who themselves quickly resort to personal attacks and vitriol? Honestly, I not only doubt my ability to combat every argument that would be thrown at me, but I just don’t think I have the stamina, and I’m a bit too emotionally invested in it myself (I did say that I feel this stuff is dangerous, after all) to remain detached and reasonable for the length of time such an enterprise would require.
So, for me personally. I have to just say “ignore.” But I truly do hope that people of wisdom and temperament will stand up to push against this dangerous distortion of Christianity, because I feel that such “pushing against” is desperately needed.

Allan (#22) and others,
One of my professors here at GCTS, Gordon Isaac, has written such a response…
Left Behind or Left Befuddled: The Subtle Dangers of Popularizing the End Times
http://www.amazon.com/Left-Behind-Befuddled-Dangers-Popularizing/dp/0814624200

Mark @73,
I too have felt like I didn’t know enough. I’m still convinced that the answer lies in telling a different story. You don’t have to have a lot of academic-type knowledge; there is a need for coherence, but you don’t have to build the story as a set of “doctrinal points”. It might be useful to try to figure out how to briefly tell the story of the bible. A friend of mine did it like this:
“I talked about God’s plan to create a beautiful world and to fill it with his own life and energy and love, and how he made Adam (man) to be the center of the whole program? the priest offering the world to God, and the mediator bringing God into the world. But Adam turned away, and to turn away from the source of life is already death, so man lies in corruption and death; the priest has become just dead bones. This was not pleasing to God, and God set out to fix it.
“I spoke of Abraham’s call as the beginning of the solution? a solution he would bring about through Abraham’s descendants, Israel. But Israel turned away also, by trying to make their own kingdom into the center of God’s plan. Nonetheless, God was serious about his plan, and what he wanted was a faithful Israelite, a Messiah. That was who Jesus was. Nonetheless, the powers of death? particularly the high priests of his own religion and the rulers of the gentiles? put him to death. And so it looked like death had triumphed after all. But God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead, and through him poured out the Spirit of the resurrection on all, to heal, empower, renew, and recreate the world. Adam was restored when Adam’s son got up from death; and Adam’s restoration, in Jesus the Messiah, is the key, finally, to the originally intended union of heaven and earth.”
from http://jbburnett.com/blogs/blogmain.html, scroll down to “What the bible says”
I think this is a much better story in every way.
Dana

As a minister I am interested that Zondervan is publishing the books and have the realization that many of my congregation will be buying them. I will not read them, primarily because I have better things to do and because I disagree with the authors’ over realized eschatology.
These books are sad examples of pop-Christianity that has damaged the church…but the books are only a symptom of a larger disease. I love the line about “maybe we are so interested in the Second Coming because we are disappointed in the first one.”
I am glad that Dr. LaHaye has given so generously to different parts of the church through his success. I am disappointed that Zondervan (a subsidary of a secular publishing company) continues to publish tripe in the face of reasoned calls for review.
Usually my ministry doesn’t deal with eschatology beyond talking redemptively and expectantly about the hope of Christ’s return and not the details. We don’t know the details. Yet we must respect the voices of our people who believe this way. Our response should be to lovingly show them our view and the variety of views available. It is our obligation as stewards of God’s people.
Some of the comments above are rash and unnecessary. They have me thinking, “Well if you are so opposed to it what are you doing to change the world?”
You are the Church!
Robert Angison

I LOVE that this conversation has continued. With challenge, passion, rebuke and grace people have stayed at the table for a couple of days to help find the deeper questions we should be asking.
I think the stakes are very high!! Reading comments here has made me sit with the question: why is this so emotionally charged for me and others who usually present with a much more irenic spirit. I realize in my experience, people can be discipled in many systems of theology and seek to live in the way of Jesus, but when it comes to living out a life of redemption, restoration a justice on this planet your eschatology always wins.
This particular eschatology is quite convenient for the white, dominant, powerful Christian culture to hold. It takes us off the hookfor a lot of responsibility and allows us to justify the current systems of power that keep us on top.
Maybe that is why we are unapologetically passionate here. For me, I realize I am the benefactor of our current systems. I feel guilty that I have supported them for so long, and I am angry with myself that I was not willing to step out of my comfort zone to challenge this thinking earlier. I feel duped, and I remember how self righteous I felt learning this brand of eschatology, this story of God’s relationship with his people.
The playing out of this particular story is very dangerous!!! I came to grips with that working with Chritians in the Pentagon. I have many stories…was just amazed. New stories of a more historical understanding of the eschaton are crucial. The stakes are high in EVERY area of our lives, and in this small global ecosystem God has created for us all to live out the Story together…in/with/for love.
Yea, we are the Church and we carry an immense responsibility to come together across boundaries and understand we we are to further the Kingdom, and what we are doing to keep people from 1) seeing it 2) wanting to embrace a walk with Jesus that we manifesting in community.

Having been in a number of churches over the past 25 years and served with many many pre-trib, pre-mil Christians, I can confidently say that the breathless (if not militant) criticisms against their belief system (and that corny Left Behind series) are undeserved. Lighten up.
At any rate, if given the choice, I’d rather associate with the somewhat simplistic but always sincere Left Behind believing types than the theological snobs who seem to take such pleasure in pointing out their eschatological shortcomings.

It would be nice to ignore the whole thing. That’s what I’ll try to do. Sadly, with Zondervan as the publisher and promoter there will be no escape. It’s inevitable that many poor souls will be thinking, “Hey, it’s in the bookstores and advertised in Christian magazines, so it must be good, right?”
As much as I’d like to see this kind of money-driven, fear-mongering goofiness stop, we’ll likely never see The End.

It’s perfectly clear that Tim knows how to make LaHay while LaSun is shining and before the San Andreas Fault gets a big jolt out of his theological skullduggery. And Blundervan Publishers up in Grand Rapture, Me-Itch-Again, knows which multi-millionaire to team up with for more of that “cankered” stuff they’ve been “wanton” for their “last days,” according to James, chapter 5!
[saw the above blurb on the web!]