This is not unusual. I am seeing more and more of this almost parody of what mainstream Christianity is, not coming from outside the fold, but coming from within Christian churches. Attitudes like Perdue's are being taught in our seminaries and Christian colleges.
I am far from what one would consider an "Evangelical" but I can see through Perdue's mockery of Evangelicals as almost resembling word for word what comes from anti-Christian speakers. I have seen the results of this from many friends coming from Divinity school having come back with extreme liberal views, then passing those off in a twisted way as somehow a 'pure Christianity'.
This is the new way the left is attacking. I thought it would be good to discuss here.
I’ve never heard of this guy, but he’s right. Dispensationalism is unscriptural, ridiculous, and tends to discredit Christianity among thinking people.
To say his point of view is another manifestation of the left is just nonsense. No wonder so many people think of “Christians” as dimwitted.
All the people I have known who moved away from destructive behavior, went towards Christianity.
>>How many of you have ever sung the hymn that says “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through. If Heaven’s not my home, then Lord what will I do?”<<
I don’t know that one — even from when I was singing in Folk Mass where we Catholics sang good old Protestant songs :)
Dispensationalism is bad because its adherents are less likely to be liberals and because they think Palestinian peace offers are insincere. Uh huh. Got it.
(BibChr, I’m pinging you because I know you have an opinion or two on dispensationalism)
Harold Camping’s a dispensationalist? I thought he was an amillenialist.
If you actually follow the links back to Perdue’s blog, you quickly realize that he’s a Liberal who’s masquerading, knowingly or otherwise, as a Christian. Lots of focus on Social Justice and “Practical Theology”, not so much focus on Christ.
Wow. I don't know any Christians who believe that war in the ME will "hasten" the return of our Lord.
However, some Islamists (most notably Imanutjob) believe they can hasten the return of the Mahdi by causing war and chaos, and these people certainly seem devoted to the cause. [http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/October/The-Mahdi-Why-Iran-is-Seeking-Global-Destruction/]
How many of you have ever sung the hymn that says “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through. If Heaven’s not my home, then Lord what will I do?” This reflects a very common attitude among evangelicals that the earth is just the hotel room of our lives, that we are only here temporarily and should put no more effort into taking care of this earth than we would our room at the Holiday Inn.
he's dead on right about this. I don't recall that song in particular, but I've heard endless repetitions of "I'll fly away", and many others about dieing and going to heaven.
What's wrong with that? It's a truncated personal eschatology. The New Testament's emphasis is not on going to heaven. It's on the resurrection, and the new heavens and new earth.
Dispensationalism is not just bad for the environment.
That it's good or bad for the environment, or any other leftist hobby horse, is completely beside the point. Any question beside whether it's true or not, is beside the point.
“This reflects a very common attitude among evangelicals that the earth is just the hotel room of our lives, that we are only here temporarily and should put no more effort into taking care of this earth than we would our room at the Holiday Inn. Why bother fighting global warming and keeping water and air clean if we’re just here temporally?”
The above quote is nonsense.
Whether or not SOME or ALL or A FEW “evangelicals” believe that “the earth is just a hotel room” it is not a given than some, or all, or even most “evangelicals” DO NOT think we are supposed to be good stewards of the earth “while we are here”. It is not even a given that all, or even most “evangelicals” reject the man-made CO2 global warming premise.
However, accepting the man-made global warming premises is a scientific and political question, not a theological one. To say it is a theological question is an admission that the author accepts the man-made global warming premise and its political bias and feels free to attack those who do not as morally in error. He is wrong, on accepting the man-made global warming premise and in his pretense that those who do not commit a moral error. His theological hubris is the greater moral error.
The author is a fool and obviously knows little about the behavior of Evangelicals. Evangelical Christians are known as good stewards, and I’d argue that hotel operators know it. I don’t know of any Christian who would do anything but take good care of a room at a Holiday Inn. To do otherwise would treat others differently than we would like to be treated.
“Many adherents are actively engaged in preventing Palestinian statehood because they believe the modern state of Israel has prophetic significance. This has led them to oppose peace in the Middle East, and has cost the lives of thousands of Palestinian and Israeli children.”
The above quote is nothing other than a reflection of politically indoctrinated ignorance.
“Peace in the Middle East” is prevented by and opposed by primarily one group of people - the political leaders of the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine who now reside outside of Israel and outside of Jordan.
Peace has always been open to them, and they have always rejected it because they have never been able to get it, by war or otherwise, on terms that will create the end or the destruction of the state of Israel.
Peace was open to them in 1948 when the independent Jewish state was a tiny, fractured, physically insecure entity and the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine outside of Israel, whether in Jordan elsewhere, held over 90% of “Palestine” as theirs. But they didn’t want Peace. They wanted the destruction of Israel, as tiny as it was.
There were more “Palestinian refugees” after Israel declared independence than before, BECAUSE the Arabs chose war instead of Peace.
Isreal’s borders grew with Israel’s refusal to be destroyed by the wars mounted against it, because the Arabs chose war over Peace.
Peace requires parties to negotiate, it is not created by one party agreeing to commit suicide. Israel has always been ready to sit and negotiate. The Arabs have always demanded some form of precondition in order to negotiate and those preconditions amount to some form of Israel giving up some aspect of their existence just to get the Arabs to sit down with them.
If “Peace” is not being negotiated now, it is the choice of the Arabs, not Israel.
There is nothing “evangelical” or even “religious” or even “right wing” about any of this. Its just history. The history of one group - the Arabs of Palestine outside of Israel - who have wanted one thing more than Peace - the destruction of Israel.
As a Catholic, I am not a Dispensationalist. I think that the gentleman (using the term loosely) is being unkind. While I do not believe as you do, and may likely from time to time have a civil argument with folks, there’s no sense in engaging in mockery. And that’s what this guy’s doing.
It is a shame that he is apparently being tolerated for that sort of stuff. Can you affect this by contacting his superiors?
And really, when it comes to Israel, it’s a civilized country, a parliamentary democracy in the midst of a sea of nastiness. They’re our allies. As such, we should support them. The Palestinians came back, largely, when an opportunity to take become “victims” coincided with being pushed out of Jordan and elsewhere. The islamists believe that if islam rules over a place once, that it must always rule over it. Waffleheads.
Oh man, I thought this was going to be about sci-fi authors and their theology, which would have been cool. Ah well.
Freegards
The author should have at least read past chapter one:
Gen 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.
Gen 3:18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."
I knew the article would be liberal neo-orthodox nonsense as soon as I read this in the third paragraph. Anybody who's studied the issue knows that "most scholars" are all over the board when it comes to the eschatology of Revelation. What he really saying is "since all the smart people agree with me then everybody else is just stupid." Just another phony trying to use Christianity to push a liberal agenda.