Question for Christian theologians

You know, it's really not the rapture per se that instills such great fear in people, Gregg. It's the fear of the events described in the Tribulation period. Why Ms Rossing chose to use "rapture" as her code word for the whole end-times events and theology probably says a great deal about her particular theological and political "racket". In other words, she's using the runaway success of the LaHaye series--which is closely identified in the popular consciousness with "rapture"--to get a forum for her own particular theological views. And she's succeeded splendidly.

While the belief in a pretribulation rapture is controversial among most Christians--and again, reasonable minds can read the same texts and come to different conclusions--the belief in the events of the end times, the devastation that will come, is not. Jesus was abundantly clear on this matter. And generally, when He's talking about something in such a straightforward, non-metaphorical way, it's a good idea for one who professes to believe in Him as their L-rd and sole means of salvation to stand up and take notice. His words are not a trifling matter, irregardless of what some liberal scholars--many of whom really think the whole thing's a crock anyway, let's not kid ourselves--happen to opine.

I'm sorry if Ms Rossing's particular view of the world and the one beyond would preclude the possibility of anything emanating from that world that might give us fear--why, how dare G-d do such a thing! And I frankly find myself speechless in the face of one who can read Jesus' very plain, simple words on the matter in Matthew, Mark and Luke and not shudder with fear.

 

DesElms:

I suppose I should explain why I asked the question.

Bill Moyers wrote a short piece for the last issue of Reform Judaism. He states that the economic elite is using rapture theology as a means of combating environmental legislation. "Why worry about conservation or global warming or endangered species," he says they say, "When the rapture will be here in no more than forty years or so."

I wondered just how many voters in our overwhelmingly Christian society would be likely to accept this message.

 

To Gregg and Jimmy....

Gregg,
Thanks for defending my outburst - I don't have time or energy to write all the words you do on a regular basis, but I appreciate your acknowledgement that my rant was not ill conceived.

Jimmy,
Sorry I offended you, and any other Christians who believe in this nonsense. But the best thing I can do for you is to point out what I believe, and let you do your best to defend your own. However, none of it is meant as a personal attack on anyone on this board, but it is most certainly a calculated attack on bigotry, intolerance, and violence as perpetuated by fantastic notions of religious belief in a world now capable of destroying itself several times over at the hands of armed factions fueled by the belief in unprovable myths on both sides.


By way of a final thought.....

God don't need no steenking rapture!

- Carl

 

Moyers is right. That's precisely what's going on... in keeping with Dwight Moody's "you don't polish the brass on a sinking ship" mentality. Or Ann Coulter, who is quoted in Rossing's book as having said, "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'"

Were that it ended with conservation issues!

Rossing, in her book, cites a poll that, in turn, was cited in an article in a 2003 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education which showed that some 40% of Americans were influenced by the whole Rapture mentality... most likely by means of their having read one or more of LeHay's Left Behind novels. That's an extraordinary number... which, fortunately, seems high to me.

Fundamentalists include it in their biblical teachings; but none of the traditional, mainstream denominations (i.e., Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians or Presbyterians) do.

That's taking cynicism -- and misleading commentary -- to a new level. But it's not surprising that you, as a conservative, have got your cause and effect all wrong on this. Liberals see something like the Left Behind series of books and are alarmed and see the need to respond. Conservatives see those same books and see no problem at all so that when liberals sound the alarm they think it's much ado about nothing. So when someone like Pastor Rossing writes a book that addresses the danger and wrong-headedness of the Left Behind series -- as a necessary response, so that fewer people will be misled -- conservatives who didn't see a problem in the first place dismiss (in fact, can't even see) the whole "necessary response" aspect of it, and dismissively chalk it up to liberal opportunism. There's no integrity in that.

Then you should be falling silent right about now, because one who has read those very plain, simple words in Matthew, Mark and Luke -- and who isn't, as a consequence, shuddering with fear -- is facing you right now.

You know, little fauss, your commentary, here, should come with a disclaimer. The reader should know about (and read your words in light off) your messianic sensibilities... and what, precisely, that means.

I have no more time than you do. I just type really, really fast, and am able to compose it as I type it and pretty much get it right the first time. It's a gift. Some people can sing. Some can roll their tongues. Some are good at math. I can churn words.

Well... not that one, anyway.

 

Ag shame

As a Gnesio-Lutheran, I accept neither the historical-critical method nor the ordination of women. But the good Dr Rossing is bang-on in her analysis.

As a Gnesio-Lutheran, I have multitudinous misgivings about the Missouri Synod.
But one of its tentacular commissions has written this superb document:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/LeftBehind.pdf

Finally, despite my nearly boundless admiration for Gregg DesElms' nearly boundless posts, and my horror at that Ann Arborite female's "rape the earth" comment, I partially concur with Dr Clifton about making this a left-right issue.

It's not.

It's a right-wrong issue. And the wrapture is wrong.

Good for business, but wrong.




PS: I don't really want to argue this. I just wanted to do the wr- wr- thingie.
Best wishes to all of yuns.

 

Re: Ag shame

 

Oy vey! If my memory isn't getting too foggy in my old age, it seems to me that Yshua said that He was coming soon. And He also said that the second coming would be like as unto a thief in the night. And He also said that no man, not even the Son of Man Himself, knows the day or the hour that is appointed for Christ's return, but only the Father which is in Heaven.

That said, methinks what is meant by these sayings is something like: "Hey, buddy! Better keep on your toes there! You never know when the Messiah will return. And you certainly wouldn't want to be embarrassed if He caught you doing something you're not supposed to be doing! So live your life as if He could return at any time!"

 

I think that the idea of salvation through grace alone rather than good works is not as clear cut as you think. Catholics and Lutherans visited this point in a joint declaration back in 1998, IIRC, and agreed that the Lutheran belief that men are justified through faith alone and the Catholic belief that faith and good works are both necessary elements of justification are not necessarily at odds. A life of faith leads to good works, and a life of good works leads to faith.

Anyway, between Catholics and Lutherans you've got alot of people, mostly reasonable, who would believe that justification through faith alone is not as "clear-cut" as you are saying it is.

 

Modernists like me have, I think, an advantage and a disadvantage in discussions regarding end times/rapture fundamentalist/literalist ideas. Our disadvantage is a profound inability to understand how such people think. I mean this literally. No device of reason, logic or evidence will faze such people in the grip of their curiously convenient belief system and we will not allow ourselves to use any other sort of approach. Thus, we suffer frustration and defeat at the hands of, say, the Kansas Board of Education.

Our advantage, I think, is that we tend to be factually correct. Science makes real, testable predictons. The modernist can be compelled by evidence to change his views. Thus, the modernism tends to be self correcting in the long run.

Western history can be seen as the gradual progress of modernism against superstition (though as I have said before, NOT against religion in its proper and necessary sphere!)

Truth will out. My concern is that the superstitious will do such horrible damage in the meantime...

Oh, regarding the "proper sphere" of religion; modernism created atomic weapons but really, morality, philosophy and religion have done much to keep us from destroying ourselves with them! I do not "diss" religion!

 

The 1998 statement was roundly rejected by WELS, ELS, and even LCMS,which took out full-page ads in secular papers carefully explaining the matter--for once, good for them!--not to mention other Lutheran churches overseas in fellowship with these synods. It is misleading to state that "Lutherans" agreed to this. Some did, some didn't. With all due esteem to our Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic posters, the issues remain what they were, as the more doctrinally careful Catholics would I think agree. Doctrinally careful Lutherans and doctrinally careful Catholics disagree on the ordo salutis; we need neither bear animus against one another nor pretend agreement.

This is, of course, utterly parenthetical to the rapture business, which is, after all, the topic of this thread.

 

Oh. One more thing. Rereading someone else's post, I saw the profound insult that those who reject the rapture business do so because they "fear the Tribulation."
What rot! Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort!

I fear heresy, schism, and apostasy. I also fear Christians masquerading as Jews in order to win unsuspecting Jews as ostensible "converts." (My Christianity does not resort to trickery in evangelism. We welcome converts, won from whatever background, won honestly in the only way true converts are ever made--by the Holy Spirit's drawing them openly and aboveboard through the means of grace in word and sacrament. The Gospel needs neither high pressure nor logomachic salesmanship--never has, never will, never uses such underhanded means. Period.)

And as for not taking the Bible literally, I would cautiously suggest that those who reject "baptism now saves you" and "this is My body...this is My blood" have no business castigating anybody over hermeneutics.

Now that's quite enough theological polemic from me. That's not what this board is for. There were simply a misrepresentation (well-meaning) and a slur (not) which required replies. Have a nize day.

 

Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa

Please forgive my generalizations about Lutherans. I sometimes forget that the ELCA is not all encompassing. I should have said "lots of Lutherans" or "those Lutherans and Catholics involved in the declaration regarding justification".

 

Thanks, Robb. All best wishes to you.

 

Equally parenthetical:

I would hate for people to think that my idea of the "proper sphere" of religion is somehow limited to churches on Sunday mornings.

I was thinking about this on my way to work. It seems to me that a good example of the proper sphere for religion in society would be the abortion debate. Loud, strident, passionate and all about MORALITY. Whether I agree with the anti abortion folks or not, I cannot fault them for saying what they are saying when and where they are saying it. More than that; their expression and political struggle is necessary to a healthy democracy in that it forces Americans to consider large and powerful issues beyond what cable service or retirement fund to select. It seems to me, anyway, that issues such as this are properly moral and religious and that, frankly, modernism has nothing to offer the body politic either way. I certainly do not condone violence but the violence is relatively rare and the speech is too important to ignore.

As I said, I do not "diss" religion.

 

To both Janko and Nos regarding their most recent posts: Agreed!

To Ted, regarding his: You're kiddin', right?

 

I'm not really sure what the role of religion is outside church doors. (Or outside the human heart, which is kind of the same thing.)

Put another way, how does religion influence a broader public space where its presuppositions may not be universally shared?

Obviously a member of a particular religion can say that his god ordered something, or that it's written in his scriptures that something, or it's his faith that something, or that his tradition teaches something.

But suppose that his opponent doesn't believe in that god, doesn't trust those scriptures, lacks that faith and doesn't identify with the tradition.

The basis of moral argument might shift and proceed from that point on utilitarian grounds or something. But unless the disputants can find some common presuppositions, the argument's apt to devolve into bible waving and name calling.

I guess that the religious believer can try to rally all the other believers and so prevail at the polls. But that's just an exercise of raw power and an abandonment of the broader moral conversation.

I'd still like to know which religion to select. I'll worry about the really hard questions like choosing retirement plans when I have that divine revelation stuff squared away.

But until that blessed day, I'm not sure what value religion has to the national conversation if it appeals for its authority to divine revelations that have been granted only to the elect.

That's OK. Me and Carl will do it for you.

 

They only need to be shared by the majority of people who bother to vote for it to MATTER in all capital letters... whether you like it or not.

The bible-thumping religious zealots who now control the Republican party; and who seem to be the majority among those who vote (or at least the majority of those who vote are sympathetic to them) don't give a rat's a__ about such philosophical issues as the "broader moral conversation." Clearly they're just interested in the raw power part of it. So while you're dismissing their relevance and underestimating their impact with your philosphical syllogistics, they're influencing our President to an aggressive "us versus them" foreign policy with an underlying religious mission; and are influencing mainstream American politics regarding such issues as abortion, homosexuality, civil rights, environmentalism, militarism and Middle East policies, as well as opposition to the United Nations, just to name a few; and profess a kind of outrageously militant Christian Zionism which argues that all the land that was ever biblical Israel needs to be given to the modern state of Israel, and that Palestininan cities -- and everything else Palestinian -- needs to be relocated so that the Jewish temple can be rebuilt.

• WARNING TO DR. JOHN BEAR: A discussion of how the most
  recent season of "The West Wing" ended is about to ensue. If
  you're not caught-up yet, please stop reading now.

In the last three episodes of this past (6th) season's NBC hit dramatic series The West Wing (Wednesdays, 9 PM Eastern & Pacific, 8 PM Central; rumored to be moving to Sunday nights this fall; in hiatus for the summer, though set to resume reruns in a two-hour special at 8 PM on Sat, 7/23/2005 in a ramp-up to the fall season opener), the character of Republican moderate presidential candidate Sen. Arnold Vinick (played by Alan Alda) was developed, and this very subject was covered extensively.

West Wing episodes have long been hailed as being relevant and accurately reflective of current issues. In the episode entitled, "In God We Trust" (aired on March 23, 2005), the press is having a field day with the fact the Vinick hasn't gone to church since his wife died. Democrats had tried to attach a minimum wage amendment to a bill that raises the debt ceiling. Vinick finds himself at the White House when he's asked by the Republican leadership to work out a deal with President Josiah Bartlet (played by Martin Sheen) to remove the wage amendment so they can pass the debt ceiling in time. In an interesting and touching scene that some followers of "The West Wing" saw as a symbolic passing of the torch from Bartlet's presidency to what many suspect will become Vinick's in the upcoming season, the two men end-up sneaking off to the kitchen together for some ice cream... where the conversation turns to religion.

• VINICK: Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?
  
  BARTLET: It's hanging in there, but I'm afraid the constitution doesn't say anything about the separation of church and politics.
  
  VINICK: You saying that's a good thing?
  
  BARTLET: I'm saying that's the way it is: always has been.
  
  VINICK: You think a voter really needs to know if I go to church?
  
  BARTLET: I don't need to know but then I'm not going to vote for you anyway. [pause] It's not up to us to decide what the voters get to use in evaluating us.
  
  VINICK: A little odd coming from someone who wasn't completely open about his health.
  
  BARTLET: That was a big mistake.
  
  VINICK: Was it? What did we know about Lincoln's health when he was running: nothing. Washington? Jefferson? What about FDR's health? And when he died in office, did people say, "Gee, why didn't he tell us he was sick?" No. Did they say, "I wish I didn't vote for him"? No.
  
  BARTLET: I don't know how you plan to handle this religious thing in the campaign.
  
  VINICK: Yeah, well, that makes two of us.
  
  BARTLET: I could find a way to let it slip that I think a candidate's religion or how often he goes to church is not relevant to choosing a president.
  
  VINICK: You going to say that on the way into church?
  
  BARTLET: Are you accusing me of politicking church going?
  
  VINICK: You've had an awful lot of photo ops on the church steps.
  
  BARTLET: I went to mass every Sunday long before I went into politics.
  
  VINICK: I did, too.
  
  BARTLET: Why'd you stop?
  
  VINICK: One Christmas my wife gave me a very old edition of the King James Bible --- 17th century. It was a real find for a book collector. It was a thrill just to hold it. Then I read it.
  
  BARTLET: [chuckling] You can't take it literally.
  
  VINICK: Yeah, that's what my priest friends kept telling me. But the more I read it, the less I could believe. I could not believe there was a God that said the penalty for working on the Sabbath was death. I couldn't believe there was a God who said the penalty for adultery was death.
  
  BARTLET: I'm more of a New Testament man, myself.
  
  VINICK: I couldn't believe there was a God who had no penalty for slavery. The Bible has no problem with slavery at all. Lincoln could have used a little help from the Bible.
  
  BARTLET: You think Lincoln was an atheist?
  
  VINICK: I hope not. That would mean all his references to God were just purely political.
  
  BARTLET: He didn't make any until he started running for office.
  
  VINICK: No, and he certainly was a doubter.
  
  BARTLET: How about you?
  
  VINICK: You going to try and save my soul?
  
  BARTLET: Sorry.
  
  VINICK: Let's just say I struggled for a long time with that book and then finally, I just gave up the struggle.
  
  BARTLET: The only thing you can pray for in this job is the strength to get through the day. You can try coffee if you want but prayer works better for me.

Later, when Vinick announced the agreement to the press, one of the reporters tried to nail him on the church thing. He responded:

• "I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get into this government.
  
  "I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there: If you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes.
  
  "So, every day until the end of this campaign, I'll answer any question anyone has on government... but if you have a question on religion, please go to church."

Even later in the episode, privately, Vinick utters a lament that I can't quote because I can't find said quote anywhere on the web; but I certainly remember the gist of it: He said, in essence, that he wasn't so bothered by the press's making a big deal about how long it had been since he'd been to church but, rather, that America had finally gotten to the point where no candidate had any reasonable expectation of winning unless he had.

I couldn't agree more. That, sadly, is what it's come to.

So, Bill, you can complain that religion has no value to the "national conversation" all you want; but while you're wasting time having the philosphical struggle, the very elect to which you refer are appealing, for their authority, to divine revelations...

...and taking the United States Constitution with it. Don't believe it? Research what would happen if the various right-winged campaigns out there to impeach judges start actually working.

These are very dangerous times. To dismiss the power and import of the rapid rightward political movement in this country, and the damage thereto that will be felt for generations to come, just because the reasons for it wouldn't pass muster in a freshman logics class is the kind of behavior that earns academics the complaints about them that they're not in touch with the reality of the world.

 

Well, DesElms, here's what I think. I don't really know too much about the rapture or the end times and all that. I haven't read Revelation all that much, because I fear the end times, if they exist, because no doubt I would be headed to the netherworld, if they did exist. The notion that I might just one day evolve into so much well-dressed worm food seems almost comforting by comparison. Now, that said, for those who buy into this particular belief system, I would think that the notion that no man knows the day or hour of Christ's return might be His way of cautioning His followers to live their lives as if He will return soon ... and try not to do anything they wouldn't want the Messiah to catch them doing. Also implicit in that message was some, well, not exactly surprise, but maybe more disillusionment (?) that there apparently exist nominal Christians who wouldn't be too concerned if Jesus caught them raping the Earth [among other things].

 

I do not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture and I've looked at the scriptures that people use to support it, but I simply don't see it. < shrugs shoulders >

The Jews were still in the earth when the plagues were thrown down in Egypt, but they were divinely protected from God's wrath. Similarly, during the tribulation, the born-again Christians will be divinely protected when the plagues are thrown down upon the earth.

 

Fair enough. Just, please, if you'll permit me to caution you, don't confuse the book of Revelation, generally, with the whole Rapture thing. They're not synonymous. I realize that the bible-thumping religious right's argument is that they're precisely that; but they're not... which has been my argument (and the argument of others, too) here.