Posted on 08/07/2006 7:16:54 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[excerpt from a review of the book Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric, by Stephen D. O'Leary, Oxford University Press, 1994. For the full review, follow the links above.
=============
According to O'Leary, the topics (that's "topoi" to you, partner) on which apocalyptic rhetors engage audiences are "evil," "time" and "authority." There is some reason to suppose that, for the earliest Christians, the evil that faced them was the malice of the devil working through the powers of the Roman Empire. The time when the evil would be amended was very near, and the authority for these propositions was the direct prophecy of the apostolic generation and then of texts ascribed to them. This type of apocalyptic is often associated with "premillennialism," the belief that the Second Coming will occur before the Millennium. Premillennialists are often profoundly pessimistic about the future, which scripture says will be filled with disaster and persecution in the days prior to the Second Coming. Postmillennialism, in contrast, is the belief that the time of the Second Coming will not occur until the end of the Millennium, during which period the church will have gradually rid the world of natural evil. The "authority" invoked by postmillennialists tends to be a metaphorical interpretation of scripture at the service of pragmatism. This distinction between pre- and postmillennialism roughly corresponds to the tragic and comedic "frames" that Aristotle proposed. (St. Augustine was a comedian? Wonders never cease.)
The Second Great Awakening, a generation of reform and revival that characterized the first few decades of the nineteenth century in the United States, produced just about every possible form of millennial activity. It's earlier phase, however, was predominantly postmillennial in theology. This Awakening was associated with a variety of reform movements, from the abolition of slavery to the prohibition of alcohol. These movements were attended by acute religious fervor. When some of the reform movements made little or no progress even after years of mass rallies and evangelism, however, some members of the generation of the Awakening began to doubt whether real reform was possible in the current world. The result was a turn toward premillennialism, manifested most spectacularly in the Millerite Movement and the Great Disappointment of 1844.
William Miller was a respectable farmer in Upstate New York who came to believe, probably about 1830, that the Second Coming would occur around 1843. A diligent amateur student of scripture, his authority was arithmetic, as applied to the complex prophetic number system of the Old Testament prophets and the Book of Revelation. The transparency and reasonable tone of his argument seized the imagination of a large fraction of the public.
Respectable and learned ministers from many denominations either embraced Millerite ideas wholeheartedly or expressed sympathy for them. (Miller himself was an influential voice rather than a prophet in the movement. Indeed, the date of the Great Disappointment, October 22, 1844, was not set by Miller, but welled up out of the movement.) Publications with large circulations sprang up to spread the doctrine, and the mass meetings used to promote the reform movements of the earlier phase of the Awakening were put to new uses. As O'Leary notes, all this activity was not intended solely to persuade people. Proselytism was supposed to be one of the features of the latter days. By proselytizing, the Millerites were not just telling people about the apocalypse; they were enacting it.
The Disappointment itself was dealt with in various ways. The kernel of the Millerite movement decided that the event actually foretold by Miller's computations was an event in Heaven that prepared for the earthly Second Coming at some imprecise point in the future. Many went on to found the Adventist movement. Other Millerites threw themselves into the Abolitionist movement. O'Leary reports that the fiasco of 1844 ensured that, for a long time to come, only the most marginal rhetors would dare set a specific, near-term apocalyptic date. However, we should also note that the turn to premillennialism evidenced by Millerism survived the Great Disappointment, at least in evangelical circles. After the end of the Civil War, the historical pessimism associated with premillennialism was one of the factors that induced evangelicals to recuse themselves as much as possible from public life and practical politics.
There are many reasons why evangelical Christianity returned as a public force in the last quarter of the 20th century. One of the chief reasons, as O'Leary notes, was that history was making their worldview more plausible. The Jews really had returned to Israel, something that evangelical eschatologists had been talking about for over a century. Furthermore, the invention of the atomic bomb made the apocalypse something that everyone could believe in, one way or another. Indeed, not only did premillennialism again challenge the implicitly postmillennial "civic religion" of the United States, but apocalyptic date-setting came back, too.
O'Leary is at pains to emphasize the differences between Millerism and the brand of apocalypticism that Hal Lindsey promoted in his fantastically popular books that began with "The Late, Great Planet Earth." Their scenarios were different, for one thing. Although the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture of the Saints existed in the 1830s, it was not incorporated into Millerism, and did not really become important until after the Civil War. Lindsey's future, in contrast, contains both the prospect of another world war and a pretribulation rapture of the Saints to Heaven that would save believers the trouble of living through the final struggle. The difference that chiefly impresses O'Leary is that, granted their premises, the logic of "The Late Great Planet Earth" is much shakier than that of William Miller and his followers.
Lindsey's warrant for starting the countdown to the end is the assurance given by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse that "this generation" would see the fulfillment of all apocalyptic prophecy. In Lindsey's model of history, the machinery of salvation paused when the Jews failed to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Salvation history started up again only when Israel was founded in 1948. (This approach is called "dispensationalism," as opposed to the Millerite "historicism.") "This generation," therefore, refers to the people who were alive in 1948. In his earlier work, Lindsey made bold to wax more specific. Alleging that a biblical generation is about 40 years, he speculated that 1988 would be a reasonable date for the rapture to occur, followed by seven years of tribulation, and then the Second Coming.
Even granting the greatest deference to scripture, these interpretations are not obvious. That was not the case with the Millerite computations: they may not have been correct, but were reasonably clear. Furthermore, Miller and his colleagues invited criticism and answered their critics in print, something that Hal Lindsey never did. Nonetheless, while Millerism was extinguished in a bit over a decade, the apocalyptic revival of which Lindsey was so conspicuous a part is not completely extinct, even after 30 years. This is partly because Lindsey's system was tentative enough to avoid outright disconfirmation, even after the end of the 20th century. A factor that was at least as important, perhaps, was that evangelicalism has gained a measure of cultural acceptance, and even political power.
O'Leary devotes an interesting chapter to the conservative revival of the 1980s, and particularly to the eschatological aspects of the Reagan Administration. This period posed a problem for apocalypse-minded conservatives. Not only was the clock running out on the best-known estimate for the rapture, but evangelicals now needed a theory that would justify them in helping to reform a society that was doomed in several senses of the word. In O'Leary's nomenclature, they needed to move from the tragic frame to the comic frame. To a limited degree, this is what they did.
In his later books, Hal Lindsey held out the hope that conservatives could keep America out of the hands of the Antichrist right up to the rapture, if they all pitched in to aid the process of conservative reform. This was an exhortation to his readers to become tragic heroes, united in the last stand against the forces of darkness. Ronald Reagan became, in effect, "President of the Last Days" for some of his supporters. Like his medieval type, the mythical Emperor of the Last Days, his reign ensured present safety, while in no way compromising the inevitability of apocalypse in the more distant future.
Televangelist Pat Robertson went even further in his serious though failed bid for the White House. He stopped making premillennialist predictions of doom entirely, and began to speak about the future with the sunny optimism of a postmillennial preacher of the early Second Great Awakening. The strategy did not lessen the suspicion in which the press held him, though it did cause his erstwhile supporters to suspect him of backsliding on doomsday. Still, what did not work for Pat Robertson may work in other contexts.
"Arguing the Apocalypse" ends with a meditation on just what we are supposed to do with the apocalypse. There is obviously no getting rid of it. O'Leary suggests that the best course would be to seek to keep it in the comic frame. The idea seems to be that the apocalypse can be permanently tamed by turning it into the ever-receding horizon on the road of progress. People might still dread impending disaster, but they would not think some final disaster to be inevitable, and so would not be tempted to historical fatalism.
While there is something to be said for this strategy, we should keep in mind that the comic frame is not coextensive with postmillennialism, or St. Augustine's amillennialism. Even if the images of disaster and judgment in the Book of Revelation are taken as metaphors whose application is never exhausted by any particular event in history, that does not mean that ultimate questions are not posed by historical events. To take the most obvious example, even if all persecutions are types of an ultimate persecution by Antichrist that never arrives, martyrs throughout history have nevertheless been killed just as dead as the hypothetical Tribulation Saints are supposed to be. To make the apocalypse immanent or episodic does not lower the stakes. The opposite, rather. This is the real meaning of the saying of Franz Kafka that O'Leary quotes: "Only our concept of Time makes it possible to speak of the Day of Judgment by that name. In reality it is a summary court in perpetual session."
It's earlier phase, however, was predominantly postmillennial in theology. This Awakening was associated with a variety of reform movements, from the abolition of slavery to the prohibition of alcohol. These movements were attended by acute religious fervor. When some of the reform movements made little or no progress even after years of mass rallies and evangelism, however, some members of the generation of the Awakening began to doubt whether real reform was possible in the current world. The result was a turn toward premillennialism, manifested most spectacularly in the Millerite Movement and the Great Disappointment of 1844....... After the end of the Civil War, the historical pessimism associated with premillennialism was one of the factors that induced evangelicals to recuse themselves as much as possible from public life and practical politics.
This except of a larger book review makes for a good introduction to the fall of postmillennialism, and the rise of premillennialism in American religious history.
Have at it, folks!
Topcat54, would you do the honors of pinging the REPL?
I am Amillennial, myself.
I would love to read a good primer/defense of the amillennial position (I'm woefully unread in that area). Can you suggest/post anything along those lines?
It's a bit long and involved for this late at night, so if you don't mind I will save it for the morning.
That makes two of us! :)
later/ping
Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (of the White Horse Inn Radio program) has written an excellent book titled "A Case For Amillenialism". It's quite good. You can find it at Amazon.com.
You may also wish to look at Anthony Hoekema's "The Bible and The Future"; and, if you can find it, there's a book that was written by a Baptist named William Cox, maybe 30 years ago; that contains a fairly good defense of Amillenialism. (It may no longer be in print.)
Technically you are also a postmillennialist to, you just didn't know it. I got this from FR, just can't remember the reasoning behind it. Probably has something to do with the now and not yet mentality.
Another thing I picked up was that the term amillennial didn't exist until the 19th or 20th century as a way for one brand of postmillenistist to different themselves from other postmillenistist, I'm not sure where I got that information but it's just one of those picky technicality things. Hope I got all those terms spelled right to, not to good on spelling.
Three books that were recommended to me where:
"The Returning King: A guide to the book of Revelation", by Vern S. Poythress
"More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation", by William Hendriksen
"Triumph of the Lamb", by Dennis E. Johnson
They were each helpful in their each unique way in understanding Amill, but I really can't remember which one was my favorite, it's been awhile. I've also read a little bit of the book already mentioned, "The Bible and the Future" by Anthony A. Hoekema and am looking forwarded to also reading the book mentioned "A case for Amillennialism.
Amillennialism is a little bit harder to grasp then postmill but once you start to grasp it you'll probably become one. Been slowly grasping the theology and am slowly becomeing one myself.
Close. I think it was "Three Views on the Millenium" or something like that.
You are right. No one knows when the Lord will return. Worrying and arguing about it does no good. Men will believe what the want as they delve into the Bible. In my own study, I have come to the belief that we are in the midst of the tribulation right now, and will be until the Lord returns. Our task... perseverance.
I cannot be a postmillenialist, because I think that we are in the midst of the tribulation right now. No, I am perfectly comfortable being an Amill.
Riddlebarger also has a very good book on the subject:
Publisher's Description: What does the Bible really teach about the end times?
Will there be a rapture with some people left behind?
How has the church traditionally understood the millennial age?
In a clear and accessible manner, Kim Riddlebarger presents and defends amillennialism as the historic Protestant understanding of the millennial age. Amillennarians believe that the millennium is a present reality centered in Christ's heavenly reign, not a future hope of Christ's rule on earth after his return.
Recognizing that eschatology-the study of future things-is a complicated and controversial subject, Riddlebarger begins with definitions of key terminology and an overview of various viewpoints and related biblical themes. He then discusses key passages of Scripture that bear upon the millennial age, including Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Romans 11, and Revelation 20. Finally, he evaluates the main problems facing each of the major millennial positions (dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism, postmillennialism, and preterism) and cautions readers to be aware of the consequences of each view.
Author Information: Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, and a visiting professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is cohost of the popular White Horse Inn weekly radio program sponsored by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Seminary.
Endorsements: "For combining thorough exegesis, readability, and lucid argumentation on this important subject, this volume has no peers." Michael Horton, author of A Better Way
"By careful examination of the key biblical passages, Dr. Riddlebarger will help and encourage Christians both to understand the real teaching of the Bible and to appropriate the blessing of this truth."--W. Robert Godfrey, president and professor of church history, Westminster Theological Seminary in California
"Carefully argued, clearly and charitably written, Riddlebarger brings needed balance and sense to the debate over the subject of the millennium."--Cornelis P. Venema, author of The Promise of the Future
SIGH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.