← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 8804 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-08-06
2003-08-06 08:19 | User Profile
From The Associated Press, available online at: [url=http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/6438474.htm]http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/6438474.htm[/url]
Writers criticize 'Left Behind' theology
By Richard N. Ostling THE ASSOCIATED PRESS August 2, 2003
Some Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants are attempting a counterattack against those fabulously popular "Left Behind" novels with plots depicting the End Times that will occur in the near future.
The Catholic bishops of Illinois, the state where the novels' publisher, Tyndale, is based, charge that the novels are "anti-Catholic in content and form" because the scenario unfairly depicts a future pope who establishes a false liberal religion linked with the Antichrist.
Beyond denominational polemics, however, the bishops object because the novels reject traditional Christian beliefs about the End.
That tradition, which gets less publicity than the popular End Times preachers, is detailed by Carl E. Olson in "Will Catholics Be 'Left Behind'?: A Catholic Critique of the Rapture and Today's Prophecy Preachers" (Ignatius).
Though "Left Behind" theology emanates from evangelical Protestantism, a segment of that movement generally agrees with the Catholic concept.
For instance, one participant in a recent faculty debate at Southern Baptist Theologian Seminary in Louisville, Ky., professor Hal Ostrander, advocated the traditional Protestant theology known as "amillennialism."
That theology says Christ's millennial reign already exists spiritually, rather than being a future kingdom as predicted through a literal reading of the biblical Book of Revelation.
The same viewpoint underlies "Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians" (Pilgrim) by Gary M. Burge, a Bible professor at Wheaton College, an evangelical school in Illinois.
Olson is as well-informed on this as Burge, since he was trained in the "Dispensationalist" theology that underlies the "Left Behind" series and similar books. He studied at Briercrest Bible College in Caronport, Saskatchewan, but converted to Catholicism in 1997 and now defends his newfound church in Envoy and This Rock magazines.
Olson objects that the popular End Times scenarios have a low regard for the church and Christian tradition.
In addition, he says, Dispensationalism recognizes "little or no continuity between the Israel of the Old Testament and the New Testament church." In certain variants, even New Testament teachings are sometimes seen as not applying to Christians, only to Israel.
Dispensationalist teachers, Olson contends, "have inserted divisions and distinctions in Scripture, often arbitrary and artificial in nature," that are not self-evident in the Bible itself.
One important problem, he continues, is that apocalyptic and poetic writings (especially Revelation) are interpreted as literal forecasts rather than as symbolic messages to the church.
Olson concludes that the literalist view "is a fabrication inconsistent in practice and misleading in theory." The Christian position on the End Times, he says, has always been simply this:
"Christ will return with and for his saints; he will judge all of mankind; time will end; and eternity will begin."
As Burge's title implies, his chief concern is fellow evangelicals' uncritical support for whatever Israel does and neglect of Palestinian justice claims.
He focuses hard on the widespread evangelical belief (shared with West Bank settlers and some other Jews) that Israel has a rightful claim to all territory between Egypt and Iraq's Euphrates River because of God's land grant in Genesis 15:18.
Burge says the Bible teaches that the gift of the Holy Land never required dispossession of non-Israelites from their homes and lands. In fact, biblical law is notable for giving full rights to non-Israelite neighbors, he says.
He also says in the biblical understanding, the gift of land is conditioned on faithfulness to God, citing for instance God's words in Deuteronomy 4:25-40 just before the Israelites conquered Canaan. Religious infidelity, God warned, would mean that the nation would be destroyed, the promised land lost and the people scattered among the nations.
Both books are vigorous and interesting, but unlikely to make much of a dent in the End Times audience being built by radio and TV evangelists and popular writers.
On the Net:
'Left Behind' (promotional): [url=http://www.leftbehind.com]http://www.leftbehind.com[/url]
Olson's page: [url=http://www.carl-olson.com]http://www.carl-olson.com[/url]
2003-08-06 17:30 | User Profile
Burge says the Bible teaches that the gift of the Holy Land never required dispossession of non-Israelites from their homes and lands. In fact, biblical law is notable for giving full rights to non-Israelite neighbors, he says.
He also says in the biblical understanding, the gift of land is conditioned on faithfulness to God, citing for instance God's words in Deuteronomy 4:25-40 just before the Israelites conquered Canaan. Religious infidelity, God warned, would mean that the nation would be destroyed, the promised land lost and the people scattered among the nations.
Sounds like a religious anti-semite to me. ;)
Both books are vigorous and interesting, but unlikely to make much of a dent in the End Times audience being built by radio and TV evangelists and popular writers.
Heck, how is this going to compete with red heifers, the impending rapture, and the coming Battle of Armageddon? Try selling Burge at Walmart. :rolleyes:
2003-08-06 20:22 | User Profile
The "Left Behind" Series are like pornography for dispensationalist Christians. They can't get enough of that garbage. SEE ALL YOUR GREATEST FANTASIES COME TRUE! Rapture! Suffering for the unbelievers! Megiddo! etc.
I'm not religious and must plead ignorance in most theological discussions, however, I would imagine that all but the most fanatical, mindless, TRULY bigoted lemmings [hmmm....perhaps the Christian Identity folks and the 'Judeo-Christians' have more in common than Patrick, IAH, et al are willing to admit?] would have the ability to reject the "HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTER: JUDGEMENT DAY" eschatology found in those books. Their popularity truly damns modern Amerikwa. :angry:
2003-08-06 21:03 | User Profile
hehehe...
.....I wouldn't read that trash, were I paid; I don't know about the identity folks, but from the sounds of the radio, they all eschew it, as well...
2003-08-06 23:40 | User Profile
**The first is puzzling. The last time I looked through the Old Testament, the 'dispossession' of the Holy Land by horrific violence was still a prominent feature of that work. The 'full rights' to non-Israelites also puzzles. Even Jesus, centuries later, refers to non-Jews in the 'Holy Land' as dogs, competing with the Master's children for food.
Has there been another redaction?**
These Scriptures may be what Burge is referencing when he says that biblical law granted rights to non-Israelites, though I can't say for sure as I haven't read his book.
Ex. 22:21 21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Ex. 23:9 9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Lev. 19:33-34 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Deut. 10:17-20 17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: 18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. 19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. 20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.
Deut. 24:17-22 17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge: 18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing. 19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. 20 When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. 21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. 22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.
Deut. 27:19 19 Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.
2003-08-07 07:12 | User Profile
**Burge says the Bible teaches that the gift of the Holy Land never required dispossession of non-Israelites from their homes and lands. In fact, biblical law is notable for giving full rights to non-Israelite neighbors, he says.
He also says in the biblical understanding, the gift of land is conditioned on faithfulness to God, citing for instance God's words in Deuteronomy 4:25-40 just before the Israelites conquered Canaan. Religious infidelity, God warned, would mean that the nation would be destroyed, the promised land lost and the people scattered among the nations.**
I can agree with the second paragraph, it has a solid foundation in Scripture.
The first is puzzling. The last time I looked through the Old Testament, the 'dispossession' of the Holy Land by horrific violence was still a prominent feature of that work.
Violence it was, horrific, by the standards of that day I doubt. Also the intent was clearly one-time and religious. (to prevent the Israeli's from intermingling with the Canaanites and adopting pagan practices. The clear message of this story is a warning against religious synchrotism, not of imperialist aggression> **
The 'full rights' to non-Israelites also puzzles. Even Jesus, centuries later, refers to non-Jews in the 'Holy Land' as dogs, competing with the Master's children for food. **
Actually he referes to them as "puppies". Also note that, in the context of the passage, he ends up granting the request of the pagan woman supplicant/
Tell the whole story.
As to full rights, God clearly required the Israelites to respect their peace treaty with the Amalikites for instance.
2003-08-07 16:24 | User Profile
"Even Jesus, centuries later, refers to non-Jews in the 'Holy Land' as dogs, competing with the Master's children for food."
Tell the whole story...
.....And get it right; He wasns't referring to non-"jews" at all, but non-Israelites, and most likely, He had the "jews" in mind as the "dogs"... If you continue equating "jews" with Israelites, you'll continue to be hopelessly addled; they are not the same thing...
.....Further, the destruction of the Canaanite mongrol hoard was because they were evil; not just a bit bad, or even disobedient, but evil... do you defend evil persons and their "right" to exist? Murderers? Rapists?