Posted on 11/18/2002 8:04:41 AM PST by american colleen
Afraid You’ll be Left Behind? The Rapture Trap.
In 1980, I was 13 years old, and someone had given me a copy of Hal Lindsey's mega-selling The Late Great Planet Earth to read. The Soviets were in Afghanistan, the American hostages were in Tehran, I had become fixated on the fear of nuclear war and — suddenly, thanks to Late Great, the chaos all made sense. There was no need to be afraid. This was all part of God's plan. Accept Jesus as your personal savior, and you wouldn't have to suffer through the worst of what was to come, for you would be spirited away in the Rapture. And if you didn't — well, too bad for you when the Antichrist comes knocking.
The premillenial Rapture is the belief, held by many Protestant Christians, that believers will, "in the twinkling of an eye," be taken body and soul into heaven to meet Jesus Christ — this, just as the world is on the brink of seven years of unprecedented suffering and strife, preceding the Second Coming and the end of history. If you think the end of the world is upon us, it's easy to see why believing you won't have to suffer the worst of it would be calming. On the other hand, you might exchange one set of fears for another. When I was in Late Great's grip, I would wake up every morning in a mild state of panic, wondering if the Rapture had happened while you were sleeping, and I'd been … left behind!
I don't believe in the premillenial Rapture anymore, but it's easy to see why so many people want to. For Christians and others whose religious beliefs predict an apocalyptic final act (even Islam and the New Age have their own versions), these days are unusually anxious. It isn't difficult to find in today's headlines — wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters, plagues, religious strife and technology run amok — evidence for the belief that history is quickening toward some sort of climax.
No wonder, then, that the same sensational theological teachings that excited believers in the 1970s and earlier are more popular than ever. The Left Behind fiction series, whose title refers to those who weren't raptured before the Apocalypse, may well be the best-selling Christian books of all time, not counting the Bible.
Given the amount of popular publicity given to the Rapture and its attendant doctrines, it may surprise (and disappoint) many Christians to learn that this set of beliefs, generally called "dispensationalism," is not explicitly taught by the Bible, nor has ever been widely held by Christians.
In fact, neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy, which together include most of the world's Christians who live now and who have ever lived, profess dispensationalist eschatology (which means the study of the End Times). The Rapture is also alien to the historical Protestant confessions (as this story from a Baptist newspaper makes clear). Martin Luther had never heard of such a thing, nor had John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, or any other Protestant divine until a pair of 19th-century British small-sect pastors developed the notion apparently independent of each other. One of the men, John Nelson Darby, traveled widely in North America between 1859 and 1874, where his dispensationalist teachings spread like wildfire. (For a more detailed explanation of this theology from a dispensationalist viewpoint, go here and here)
Given world events, particularly in the Middle East and Europe, the dispensationalist fire continues to roar among Christians, who understandably want to know if today's headlines can be explained and tomorrow's headlines can be predicted from ancient Scripture. Unfortunately, many Christians are under the impression that dispensationalist teaching — on Christianity's theological fringe, historically speaking — is the first and last word on the matter. Most Catholic priests, as well as their mainline Protestant counterparts, downplay or ignore their congregations' natural — and sociologically predictable — interest in the End Times, leaving lay believers open to instruction by those who, however misguided, take it seriously. That's why Paul Thigpen, a Yale-trained religious historian and Catholic convert, wrote The Rapture Trap.
"I began to see so many Catholics taken in by this Left Behind stuff, because they've had no religious instruction in eschatology," Thigpen tells NRO. "In so many parishes the homilies are like, 'Love your neighbor, be nice.' If priests never get around to talking about who Jesus is, there's no way they're ever going to get around to talking about the Second Coming."
Though he writes from a Catholic perspective, Thigpen, an ex-Pentecostal and former editor of Charisma magazine, takes care to demonstrate in the book how none of the leaders of the Reformation believed in the Rapture. He says the "historical myopia" of American culture leaves people vulnerable to those who can exploit ignorance of the past with convincing presentations of vivid theologies. Besides, America has always been fertile ground for apocalyptic religion.
"In the early days, the Puritans thought the Kingdom of God would start in North America, in their colony," Thigpen says. "We have several large denominations in America, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who owe their existence to millennial fervor."
Eschatalogically-focused expressions of faith have swelled in popularity during times of social distress and dislocation, such as after the Civil War, and during the period of rapid industrialization and immigration. There was another great surge of it following World War II, says Thigpen, and again in the 1970s, as a reaction to countercultural upheaval. The dispensationalist apologetic The Late Great Planet Earth was the best-selling nonfiction book of the decade, and though he has never apologized for his erroneous predictions in that book, author Hal Lindsey continues to be considered by many an authority on Biblical prophecy. Being a dispensationalist evangelist means never having to say you're sorry.
Why should any of this matter? As I wrote this past summer, apocalyptic beliefs dictate the behavior of many true believers. American dispensationalists were early non-Jewish supporters of Zionism, believing that the ingathering of diaspora Jews to their Biblical homeland was a necessary precursor for the return of Christ. Though many Evangelicals and other Christians support Israel today for other reasons, no small number of them do so because their end-times belief mandates it. Thigpen is not so much worried that Rapture-expecting Christians will blow up Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock to hasten Armageddon as he is concerned about the spiritual harm that may result from acceptance of dispensationalist beliefs.
"When times look tough and threatening, perhaps people find a comfort in believing in the Rapture, that God will help them escape events before they become too bad," Thigpen says. "Ideas have consequences. One, the Rapture doctrine ignores the redemptive power of suffering, which is a powerful Christian theme. Two, the Bible also shows that God chastises His people as well as their enemies; believers share in suffering as well. Three, if people wrongly believe Christians won't be around for the persecution that Scripture tells us will precede the Second Coming, they won't prepare themselves spiritually or otherwise."
Just because Catholicism doesn't teach the Rapture or focus on end-times prophecy doesn't mean the Catholic world has escaped popular apocalypticism. The particularly Catholic version comes as a mania for apocalypse-centered apparitions and private revelations claimed by contemporary visionaries. The Rapture Trap writes of the spiritual danger of uncritically accepting such claims, and offers discernment guidelines drawn from Catholicism's conservative tradition.
"What we're dealing with are people who are scared and confused by what's going on in the world today, and who aren't getting the information they need to separate what's real from what's vain and even harmful speculation," Thigpen says. "As Christians, we believe Jesus is coming back, and we have to be ready for that to happen at any moment. But this game of 'plug the headline into the Scripture verse,' or into the latest message from a supposed apparition, is a losing proposition."
You're all messed up. The forth and final cup was drunk by Him on the cross. "IT IS FINISHED!" The end of the Passover. And Christ is the Passover Lamb of God.
No, we are not to doubt his words. He is the vine and we are the branches, He is the door and we are to go through Him, He is the living waters and we are to drink of the living waters he provides... in each of these stories, He uses a metaphor to get His point across, but He never held up a door or a vine or water and said "This is my body, which will be given up for you" as he did with the bread.
Jesus taught in words and pictures that the Jews understood...
Yes, and they understood him literally when He told them they had to eat His flesh... then they walked away and He merely reinforced his words saying, "Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in you." And they were disgusted and walked away... and He let them.
Excerpts from Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman's Sermon "Faith and Private Judgment":
[F]aith is a state of mind, it is a particular mode of thinking and acting, which is exercised, always indeed towards God, but in very various ways...As a man might be without eyes or without hands, so [most] are without faith; it is a distinct want or fault in their soul; and what I say is, that since they have not this faculty of religious belief, no wonder they do not embrace that, which cannot really be embraced without it. They do not believe any teaching at all in any true sense; and therefore they do not believe the Church in particular.
Now, in the first place, what is faith? it is assenting to a doctrine as true, which we do not see, which we cannot prove, because God says it is true, who cannot lie. And further than this, since God says it is true, not with His own voice, but by the voice of His messengers, it is assenting to what man says, not simply viewed as a man, but to what he is commissioned to declare, as a messenger, prophet, or ambassador from God...
Now, in matter of fact, do not men in this day change about in their religious opinions without any limit? Is not this, then, a proof that they have not that faith which the Apostles demanded of their converts? If they had faith, they would not change. Once believe that God has spoken, and you are sure He cannot unsay what He has already said; He cannot deceive; He cannot change; you have received it once for all; you will believe it ever.
Such is the only rational, consistent account of faith; but so far are [true unbelievers] from professing it, that they laugh at the very notion of it. They laugh at the notion itself of men pinning their faith (as they express themselves) upon Pope or Council; they think it simply superstitious and narrow-minded, to profess to believe just what the Church believes, and to assent to whatever she will say in time to come on matters of doctrine. That is, they laugh at the bare notion of doing what Christians undeniably did in the time of the Apostles. Observe, they do not merely ask whether the Catholic Church has a claim to teach, has authority, has the gifts;—this is a reasonable question;—no, they think that the very state of mind which such a claim involves in those who admit it, namely, the disposition to accept without reserve or question, that this is slavish. They call it priestcraft to insist on this surrender of the reason, and superstition to make it. That is, they quarrel with the very state of mind which all Christians had in the age of the Apostles; nor is there any doubt (who will deny it?) that those who thus boast of not being led blindfold, of judging for themselves, of believing just as much and just as little as they please, of hating dictation, and so forth, would have found it an extreme difficulty to hang on the lips of the Apostles, had they lived at their date, or rather would have simply resisted the sacrifice of their own liberty of thought, would have thought life eternal too dearly purchased at such a price, and would have died in their unbelief.
And they would have defended themselves on the plea that it was absurd and childish to ask them to believe without proof, to bid them give up their education, and their intelligence, and their science, and in spite of all those difficulties which reason and sense find in the Christian doctrine, in spite of its mysteriousness, its obscurity, its strangeness, its unacceptableness, its severity, to require them to surrender themselves to the teaching of a few unlettered Galilæans, or a learned indeed but fanatical Pharisee. This is what they would have said then; and if so, is it wonderful they do not become [or remain] Catholics now? The simple account of their remaining as they are, is, that they lack one thing,—they have not faith; it is a state of mind, it is a virtue, which they do not recognise to be praiseworthy, which they do not aim at possessing...
Has faith changed its meaning, or is it less necessary now? Is it not still what it was in the Apostles' day, the very characteristic of Christianity, the special instrument of renovation, the first disposition for justification, one out of the three theological virtues? God might have renewed us by other means, by sight, by reason, by love, but He has chosen to "purify our hearts by faith"; it has been His will to select an instrument which the world despises, but which is of immense power. He preferred it, in His infinite wisdom, to every other; and if men have it not, they have not the very element and rudiment, out of which are formed, on which are built, the Saints and Servants of God. And they have it not; they are living, they are dying, without the hopes, without the aids of the Gospel, because, in spite of so much that is good in them, in spite of their sense of duty, their tenderness of conscience on many points, their benevolence, their uprightness, their generosity, they are under the dominion (I must say it) of a proud fiend; they have this stout spirit within them, they determine to be their own masters in matters of thought, about which they know so little; they consider their own reason better than any one's else; they will not admit that any one comes from God who contradicts their own view of truth. What! is none their equal in wisdom anywhere? is there none other whose word is to be taken on religion? is there none to wrest from them their ultimate appeal to themselves? Have they in no possible way the occasion or opportunity of faith? Is it a virtue, which, in consequence of their transcendent sagacity, their prerogative of omniscience, they must give up hope of exercising? If the pretensions of the Catholic Church do not satisfy them, let them go somewhere else, if they can. If they are so fastidious that they cannot trust her as the oracle of God, let them find another more certainly from Him than the House of His own institution, which has ever been called by His name, has ever maintained the same claims, has ever taught one substance of doctrine, and has triumphed over those who preached any other. Since Apostolic faith was in the beginning reliance on man's word, as being God's word, since what faith was then such it is now, since faith is necessary for salvation, let them attempt to exercise it towards another, if they will not accept the Bride of the Lamb. Let them, if they can, put faith in some of those religions which have lasted a whole two or three centuries in a corner of the earth. Let them stake their eternal prospects on kings and nobles and parliaments and soldiery, let them take some mere fiction of the law, or abortion of the schools, or idol of a populace, or upstart of a crisis, or oracle of lecture-rooms, as the prophet of God. Alas! they are hardly bestead if they must possess a virtue, which they have no means of exercising,—if they must make an act of faith, they know not on whom, and know not why!...
You look up, and you see, as it were, a great mountain to be scaled; you say, "How can I possibly find a path over these giant obstacles, which I find in the way of my becoming Catholic? I do not comprehend this doctrine, and I am pained at that; a third seems impossible; I never can be familiar with one practice, I am afraid of another; it is one maze and discomfort to me, and I am led to sink down in despair." Say not so, my dear brethren, look up in hope, trust in Him who calls you forward. "Who art thou, O great mountain, before Zorobabel? but a plain." He will lead you forward step by step, as He has led forward many a one before you. He will make the crooked straight and the rough plain. He will turn the streams, and dry up the rivers, which lie in your path. "He shall strengthen your feet like harts' feet, and set you up on high places. He shall widen your steps under you, and your tread shall not be weakened." "There is no God like the God of the righteous; He that mounts the heaven is thy Helper; by His mighty working the clouds disperse. His dwelling is above, and underneath are the everlasting arms; He shall cast out the enemy from before thee, and shall say, Crumble away." "The young shall faint, and youths shall fall; but they that hope in the Lord shall be new-fledged in strength, they shall take feathers like eagles, they shall run and not labour, they shall walk and not faint." [Faint and Private Judgment excerpts (c. 1849)]
Popping some popcorn and sitting back to watch?
Post something positive, Matchett! Show me you are a Christian, and not just professing! Give someone you disgree with a compliment!
The spirit of mockery and persecution that comes over people when they decide to become aggressive attackers -- it's very sad. It happened to the Pharisees.
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.