There were a couple of points I wanted to highlight here because they mirrored a similar discussion I had when I critiqued Tom Krattenmaker’s book Onward Christian Athletes and USA Today article “What if the end isn’t near?” 

1.  Sinnott-Armstrong (hereafter SA)  gives the same false critque of theism as a view that provides only an option emphasizing the future world instead of meeting needs in today’s world.  SA calls the two options infiniphilia and finiphilia.  SA remarks:

   “The conflict arises only because infiniphiles…love the infinite [eternity] so much that they deny that finite goods, harms, and lives have any meaning at all in the face of eternity.
  The problem with infiniphilia is that it robs us of any incentive to improve this finite world.  Indeed, it gives us reason to destroy this finite world if we need to do so in order to reach an eternal Heaven.  Just think of suicide bombers.  If this is the best that theism can do, then it cannot provide a sound reason to be moral.  Nor can it provide meaning in this life”  (p. 128).

There are some obvious problems with this assessment and the contextual lead up to it in SA’s work.  Christians will not be moved easily by such appeals.  First, he uses suicide bombers as an image when discussing theism in general.  This is a guilt-by-association argument.  Since when is radical Islam the best representative of what theism can do?  At least Krattenmaker did not do that in discussing Christians who believe in a pre-trib rapture in his USA Today article.  SA in taking this approach is taking the low road and giving a low blow that is not deserved.  Second, one wonders about his overall assessment of religionists who believe in heaven and hell—the ones who allegedly overdose on thinking about eternity.  If we limit ourselves to the Christian faith that I represent, one can ask, “Is it true that two thousand years of traditional Christianity (with its belief in heaven and hell) has produced nothing good for the present world?”  SA makes a generalization that is intolerable.   The Bible consistently calls for present action in light of God’s coming kingdom (2 Thess., 1 Peter, among many other books and passages).  Furthermore, what is the evidence on the historical ground so to speak? Are there no hospitals in the name of Christ?  Are there no schools in the name of Christ?  Are there no counseling centers in the name of Christ?  The list could go on and on.  The fact of the matter is that conservative, Bible-believing Christianity has done an awful lot for this present world while at the same time believing that one’s eternal destiny is paramount.  The argument that such belief in eternity devalues the present time is simply wishful thinking on the part of atheists.  The historical record says otherwise.

2.  SA presents a vision of the future where conservative Christianity does not exist.  Toward the end of his book when he looks at what is needed, he comments on the need for dialogue and suggests that an end to the culture wars (if that is to be a desired goal) can only come about  by Christians giving up the offensive doctrine of hell.  He comments on Carlton Pearson, a mega-church pastor and graduate of Oral Roberts who gave up the doctrine of hell and began to promote a “Gospel of Inclusion:”

“The point here is that by giving up traditional doctrines of Hell, Pearson avoids many of the problems for religion that I have raised in this book.  He also undermines some of the motivation for fearing atheists.  Maybe theists can even marry atheists if atheists are not immoral, as I argued, and also not bound for Hell, as Pearson thinks.  It took tremendous courage for Pearson to change his religious views publicly.  That kind of courage is what we need in order to end the culture wars that divide modern societies” (p. 153).

The kind of world that SA envisions is a pluralistic one in which conservative, especially evangelical, Christianity actually does not exist.  It is similar to the argument made by Krattenmaker in Onward Christian Soldiers who argued for a pluralistic religious ministry to athletes that would allow evangelicals to be part of it if they gave up Jesus, the gospel, and hell.  In short, evangelicals could be part of the envisioned world if they quit being evangelicals!  SA’s picture is practically the same.  I am not sure he understands how he is sounding to genuine evangelicals at a time when he wants respectability and especially wants us to stop fearing atheists.

That is why his appeal to ongoing dialogue, which I favor, is still problematic to some degree.  In light of the vision he proposes, the evangelical can wonder if his version of dialogue is like the Borg on Star Trek – resistant is futile; you will be assimilated!  If one thinks this is overly simplistic, I have a question.  Does the pluralistic vision that SA presents allow for a qualified young-earth creationist to teach science in a public college?  Can that happen at Dartmouth?  Will our pluralism really be genuine pluralism or just a scheme to bring about a secular vision of the world? In the late 1800s and early 1900s evolutionists argued that we needed pluralism in public schools.  Creation should not be the only approach to origins in our schools, they said.  To lock the evolutionary model out would be a violation of our pluralistic culture.  Of course, evolution won the day.  And true to their pluralistic vision, they have allowed the teaching of Creation as a model of origins to continue, right?  No, they have become vociferous in championing that only their model can be taught.  There is no pluralism in sight.  Of course, most creationists view this as pure prejudice.  It is historical realities such as these that continue to make the Christian skeptical of the skeptics.

I found Goldman’s six categories of uneven interest for me.  That could be because of my own background and preferences than any lack of value to Goldman’s presentation.  I really could not easily get into chapter 4, his discussion of Catholicism and the Jews in recent times.  I was fascinated by the connection between Laurence Oliphant and Naphtali Imber (chapter 1) and the pro-Zionist position of the Anglican Herbert Danby, translator of the Mishnah (chapter 3).  Although I already knew quite a bit about Theodor Herzl, Goldman filled in the gaps of Christian relationships in the early days of the formal Zionist movement (chapter 2).  I also knew quite a bit about recent relationships such as Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals (chapter 6) so the last chapter filled in small gaps for me but was still appreciated.  The discussion of literary “pilgrims” Jorge Luis Borges, Robert Graves, and Vladimir Nabokov marked new territory for me (chapter 5).  Among them I only had serious knowledge of Graves, having read his scandalous novel King Jesus almost thirty years ago.  I found the discussion fascinating although in this section Goldman shows an interest in the literature for literature’s sake in my opinion.  The actual focus on Zionism in these men perhaps did not get the attention it deserved.  The coverage of these men also shows that the idea of “Christian” in the book is quite broad.  There is the possibility that none of these men would be considered orthodox by any measurements.  Such is true for others as well.  But Goldman is dealing with men who are self-professed from Christian tradition, so it may not have been necessary for him to label such things more fully (he does mention problems at certain points), although it would have been helpful to have more.

 In this section, I would like to list some random thoughts that emerged as I read Goldman’s book:

 1.  I found it interesting that many of the early Zionists viewed Zionism (the return of the Jews to their homeland in Palestine) as the solution to anti-Semitism.  Now that the Jews do have a home in a national Israel in Palestine, one has to ask if the proposed solution actually worked.  Regrettably, the answer is no.  Israel as a nation has become the new target.  Anti-Israel is now the new anti-Semitism.  There has just been a shift in the application of the evil spirit of anti-Semitism.   Dispensationalists like me view themselves as helping to stand against worldwide anti-Semitism when we support the nation of Israel.

2.  The hostility against Zionism is not always anti-Semitic.  Sometimes it is simply theological (wrong-headed theology from my point of view).  One example Goldman points out is the 1945 statement by Bishop W. H. Stewart of St. George’s Anglican Church in Jerusalem:

 “There is an uncommon tendency today both in England and in America, to base large Zionist claims on the Old Testament history and prophecies, and thereby to win support from many Christians whose respect for the Bible is perhaps greater than their understanding of it…The Christian doctrine of the New Testament is that the new spiritual Israel of the Christian Church, with its descent by the spiritual birth of baptism, is the sole heir to the promises themselves also spiritualized, which had been fortified by the Old Israel after the flesh, with its descent by human generation” (p. 142).

 This is what is called replacement theology or supersessionism.  In this scheme, one cannot really trust the Old Testament statements at face value.  The devaluing of Israel follows.  There is no use for Zionism and a future for national Israel in this scheme.

 3.  At times Goldman misses the mark badly.  For example, when referring to the Left Behind series as influenced by dispensationalism, he notes that in the series, only “Born Again Christians” are saved (p. 286).  Those who are not saved, he mentions, end up in eternal damnation (hell).  The way that Goldman words this, he gives the impression that this belief is something radical or different.  However, it is not.  This view is the orthodox Protestant view.  It is not unique to dispensationalism.

 4.  Goldman mentions Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook who viewed the killing of European Jews as a type of cleansing or purification from the impurity of exile which would lead to the establishment of national Israel.  What struck me was that this is in spirit similar to the dispensational understanding of the nature of the coming tribulation, among other things a cleansing of the nation of Israel.  What will follow is the national restoration in spiritual glory in the land.  The similarities are a bit striking.  It appears that Kook had read the Old Testament carefully.

 Again, I highly recommend Goldman’s book to you.

 1.  How many pre-trib Christians hold different views of nuclear weapons and environmentalism from the author’s because of factors other than biblical views of the end times;
2.  The generous use of overstatement throughout the article;
3.  Unwarranted assumptions and limited options that are sometimes given (why are there only two futures?  why not 3 or 4? are we really dealing with all the possibilities?);
4.  The false charge of fatalism in light of the true nature of the doctrine of imminency;
5.  The use of fringe views or minority views instead of scholarly and thoughtful presentations of the pre-trib perspective;
6.  As a corollary to # 5, the futurism of the pre-trib view which does not allow for predictions of the future in a true pre-trib perspective.  In other words, the article seems to be unaware that it is being critical of historicist misrepresentations of the pre-trib perspective rather than the pre-trib perspective itself.
7.  As a corollary to # 1, the idea that the article (may) assume that current political environmentalism is what the Bible teaches about care for the created order.

To begin, I want to make some remarks about unwarranted assumptions and limited options that are given in Krattenmaker’s article.  This is demonstrated at the very outset of the article.  Citing Tyler Wigg-Stevenson (favorably), Krattenmaker says “he sees two futures.  In one, the world has rid itself of nuclear weapons.  In the other, the world has been destroyed by them.”  These two options appear to be the thrust of the title of Wigg-Stevenson’s organization the Two Futures Project.  It is quite appropriate for someone to voice his view of the dangers of nuclear weapons.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  All wars are to be avoided if at all possible, not just nuclear ones.  However, is the opinion that these are the only two options (world-wide destruction or no nukes exist) a wise one to possess on such a critical issue? Is there no middle position that is possible?  Why craft the issue in these stark terms?  One must live in reality not in a dream world.  It is not at all a sure conclusion that the world will destroy itself with nuclear weapons if they are allowed to exist.  It is certainly a theoretical possibility.  However, it is not an inevitable one.  One cannot assume the world-wide catastrophic end when the next nuke is used (although some pretribs do hold this view).   Of course, this view could be seen as playing it safe to prevent the catastrophe.  Unfortunately, in a fallen world this may not be appropriate.  If evangelicals rose up to be against nuclear weapons and helped lead America to unilaterally destroy all their nuclear weapons, it is not at all assured that the same would be true of other parts of the world.  A wise use of nuclear weapons as deterrents has been quite effective for decades in preventing catastrophe and/or servitude.

Krattenmaker shows this all or nothing approach (the two futures approach) at the end of the article: “[Christians] can bet on a supernatural rescue for themselves and their kind and wait for the cataclysm.  Or they can dedicate themselves to compassionate action to alleviate suffering and injustice, to creating a better world.”  Here he is broader in the “two ends” approach.  The problem from his viewpoint is that evangelicals who believe in the pre-trib rapture simply want to sit on their hands and let the world blow itself up because they know that God will jerk them out of the world before that happens.  However, this is theologically deficient because the pre-trib rapturist knows the Bible never says that the world will be destroyed until after the millennium (and many believe that is a recreation not annihilation).  In addition, it puts forward a false dichotomy.  Is it not possible to work for a better world and alleviate suffering and injustice while also believing that the next act of God’s prophetic timetable is the rapture of the church?  In asking, as Krattenmaker does, “Which would their savior have them do?”

 The reason I believe it is possible is that belief in the pre-trib rapture is not inherently fatalistic.  Some pretribs have become fatalistic and they should be fairly criticized for it.  However, the position itself is not fatalistic in the sense of rejecting any improvement at all within the present order.  Some have turned imminency into immediacy.  Immediacy means soon.  It is certainly possible that the rapture will be soon.  However, imminency means that it can happen at any moment.  This includes tomorrow.  It also includes within it the possibility that it is 3000 years from now.  Within this proper view of imminency there is plenty of room for the Christian who believes in the pretrib rapture also to believe in helping the poor and needy and to alleviate suffering in the world.

Such thinking also relates to a discussion of futurism versus historicism.  The pretrib position or dispensationalism is biblically futurist.  All of the events given in the Bible such as the coming tribulation and kingdom are future in this understanding.  Technically, the pretrib position cannot map current events to biblical passages.  Virtually all future events in the Bible can happen after the rapture of the Church.  When a pretrib rapturist starts to map biblical prophecy to current events, he is acting like a historicist who believes he is living within the time of fulfillment.  However, the best we can say is that we could be living in the setup for the end time days.  We will know when we get there.  It is quite all right to live in hope that we are near the end.  The fact that Israel is back in the land among other things gives such hope since Israel must be in the land for the end time events to occur.  However, as Joel Rosenberg once said at a banquet I attended, “God can kick the can [of history] down the road fifty years.”  Understanding this from a fully biblical view helps us to realize that there is no reason to avoid social engagement as it is biblically appropriate.  Pretribs who live and talk as historicists actually fuel the criticisms of Krattenmaker and others.

Finally, in an earlier post, I had noted that my views on nuclear weapons (which I mention above) and environmentalism stem from factors other than my view of end time days.  I voiced my simple disagreement with Al Gore as an example.  I want to extend that particular discussion by noting that current environmental concerns for planet earth do not necessarily match what the Bible teaches about care for the created order.  It is hardly necessary to remind the reader of the doomsday scenarios of the environmentalists with rather bizarre predictions.  We were told our raping of the planet in the 1960s would lead to us running out of petroleum in the 1990s.  They were wrong.   I was taught in college in the 1970s the catastrophe of global cooling.  They were wrong then.  It is easy to believe they are wrong now.  The wild array of prophecies uttered in the name of environmentalism is just as extreme as anything a Christian has said about the end of the world.  The Bible gives a more balanced treatment of creation care than the glimpse of things often coming out of the environmental movement.

All in all, Krattenmaker’s article was a hard one for a pretrib to read.  It came across as extreme and going to the edges to make its criticisms.  However, it is important for pretribs to see how others view their position and reading such an article is helpful in that light.  Pretribs need to do a better job responding to such charges.  I sense a book brewing.

1920s Article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Covenant theologians have long been sensitive to being charged with anti-Semitism.  Recall the discussions about the Knox Seminary Open Letter and my response to it which can be found here in the eschatology section of the drop-down menus (click on systematic theology to get to eschatology).  However, it seems that dispensationalists are also occasionally charged with being anti-Semitic.  Apparently, no one in the evangelical world is immune to the charge.

Often I see the name Arno C. Gaebelein come up in such disucssions.  I am well-versed in Gaebelein’s life and work since I did my Ph.D. dissertation on him.  But I continue to be amazed at the misinformation that is broadcast about him on many fronts, including his attitudes about Jews.  To be sure, in my dissertation I analytically criticize him on many fronts as any dissertation writer would do.  In my case, it was a focus on Gaebelein’s theological method although I also get into the life influences upon Gaebelein and his attitudes about the Jews.

I had made a post earlier about a book I am reading entitled Zeal for Zion by Shalom Goldman.  It is a delightful book that I still encourage others to read.  However, the author falls prey to what he has heard from other sources. Due to the passing on of such shallow or sloppy historical research, an incorrect view of Gaebelein is given.  Notice the following quote from Goldman’s work:

Other Christian Zionists, including some in the leadership of fundamentalist churches influenced by dispensationalism, had a darker more conspiratorial view of the Jewish role in history.  In the early 1930s the popular American evangelical preacher Arno C. Gaebelein cited the infamous forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as proof of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy poised to control world affairs.  This forgery, circulated in 1902 by the Russian intelligence services, claimed to be a secret record of meetings of Jewish leaders.  Here Gaebelein clashed with the view of William Blackstone, who had earlier asserted that the Protocols were a forgery.  (p. 39)

What is short-sighted in such statements about Gaebelein is there is no mention about the fact that Gaebelein changed his mind and in 1939 signed a document with many other leading fundamentalists repudiating the Protocols.  While it is fair to judge him about his statements, it is not fair to leave things hanging in such an incomplete manner.  In addition to mistreating Gaebelein, the writer gives the impression that dispensationalism is associated with a “darker more conspiratorial view of the Jewish role in history.”  Even if this is true of Gaebelein, that does not make it true of dispenationalism generally.  Moreover, one can easily see in Gaebelein his criticism of certain Jews he called “apostate” Jews — those who were atheistic communists.  One has the right to evaluate Gaebelein’s criticism at this point.  However, he certainly was not criticizing these Jews because they were Jews.  It seems to me that anti-Semitism only exists in someone if they go against Jews in some way because they are Jews.  In Gaebelein’s case, this test fails to show any anti-Semitism.  Writings such as Goldman’s need to tighten up their research and not leave loose opinions hanging out there that are simply not true.

For further information see my dissertation:  Michael D. Stallard, The Early Twentieth-Century Dispensationalism of Arno C. Gaebelein (Lewiston, NY:  Edwin Mellen Press, 2002), p. 43-59.

Yannis Behrakis -- Reuters

The unrest in the country of Egypt is a concern for all of us.  It has the potential of altering our lives if gas prices are somehow affected.  It could also veer off in an anti-Israeli direction which will not help the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East.  This humanly speaking can have disastrous impact on the world at large.

Egypt also has a role in Bible prophecy at several points.  The king of the south in Daniel 11 for example may well be the leader of Egypt as some interpreters hold.   Usually, however, when current events like this occur, there are those who will overstate the implications for prophecy.  We won’t know the ultimate implications for prophecy until the end-time events (rapture, tribulation, Second Coming, kingdom) begin to occur.  So, please refrain from overstatement in this area and stick to biblical teaching about Egypt in the latter times.

The second unexpected historical discovery was the connection between Edward Irving and the Irvingites to Naphtali Herz Imber who published the words to Hatikvah (“Our Hope” or “The Hope”) in 1886.  This poem set to music became the official national anthem of Israel in 2004 although it had been the unofficial theme song of the nation long before that time.  What I find interesting is that Imber gives credit to the Zionist hopes of Laurence Oliphant, a Christian Zionist whose  father Anthony Oliphant was an Irvingite following the teaching of Edward Irving.  Anthony was present at some of the Albury Conferences sponsored by Irving from 1826 to 1830 in England.  While Anthony seemed more deeply committed than Laurence, the latter (the son) apparently never gave up his millennialist leanings which he inherited from his father.  Laurence became instrumental in promoting the idea of a Palestinian homeland for the Jews.

Another thought that arose in my mind as I read the section on Oliphant and Imber was that the song “Our Hope” was the name of the monthly publication put out by Arno C. Gaebelein, associated editor of the Scofield Reference Bible, for over 50 years (1894-1945).  I have named my blog by this magazine in light of my dissertation work on Gaebelein many years ago.  I wonder if Gaebelein was aware of this new Jewish poem/song which came out in the 1880s?  Most likely this was a common expression among the Jewish faithful whom Gaebelein ministered to in his New York City outreach to the Jews.

Erasmus

I thought about the King James Only Debate while reading a book by David Bentley-Taylor entitled My Dear Erasmus: The Forgotten Reformer (2002).  I have always found the logic (or lack of it) in King James proponents appalling.   I have also thought that the issue is one of church tradition rather than the Bible itself.  The Erasmus book is largely a book of quotes from letters to and from Erasmus (mostly from Erasmus).  The letter in particular that caught my attention was probably in 1515.  Maarten van Dorp wrote Erasmus the following words (taken from David Bentley-Taylor’s book):

I understand that you have also revised the New Testament and written notes on over a thousand passages.  This raises another point on which I should like in the friendliest possible spirit to issue a warning.  What sort of operation is this, to correct the Scriptures, and in particular to correct Latin copies by means of the Greek?…It will do a great deal of harm.  Many people will have doubts about the integrity of the Scriptures if the presence of the least scrap of falsehood in them becomes known.

Much like the KJV only proponents today, many Catholics  in the early sixteenth century reacted to any corrections in the Latin Vulgate as this quote shows.  If we get back to more accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages of the Bible, but in the process show that the Latin had some problems, it would produce skepticism about the Bible.  KJVers argue the same way today.  This is always the tradition that will be elevated when someone holds to the inspiration or inerrant status of a complete translation.

Erasmus replied to van Dorp the following way:

I wonder what has beguiled your very clear-sighted mind.  You write like one of our ordinary divines who habitually attribute to the authority of the church anything that has somehow slipped into current usage.  Supposing some synod has approved the Vulgate, did it approve it in such terms that it is absolutely forbidden to correct it by the Greek original?  Were all the mistakes approved as well?

Similarly, it is the KJV movement which is really invoking the authority of tradition to supposedly defend the Word of God, when in fact, all it is doing is hindering people from seeing the pure word of God in the original languages.

Quotes above are from David-Bentley Taylor’s book, p. 63-64.

To offset the American dependence upon individualism, the word and concept of community has been invoked as one of the important philosophical buzzwords of our day.  We need more community in politics.  We need more collaborative experiences in learning (note the approach of Wikipedia).  We need more community-oriented ministry in our churches.  While there is a touch of truth to all of these claims and across all disciplines, it is my judgment that we are at the current time overdosing on community and devaluing the individual.  One area which I am keenly watching is the political debate in the United States over direction.  We are at a crossroads.  Do the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?  Or do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?  Recall some of the earlier Star Trek movies which tried to deal with these themes and questions.  Right now a push for bigger government seems to downplay individual liberty for the sake of the collective.  On the other side is the push back (Tea Party, etc.) which wants to preserve the value of the individual and his freedom within a smaller government approach.  In one sense this can be viewed as a response to the criticism that has been leveled at rugged individualism in the American way of life.

However, the area I have the most interest in relative to such things is Bible interpretation or hermeneutics.  It is fashionable to assert that individuals can only interpret or study the Bible within the context of the religious community in which they take part.  We are prisoners, so to speak, of that community when it comes to how we read the Bible.  While we must not downplay the influence of the community, we must not let the community be a jail in which the individual cannot read the Bible for himself.  Some of the current postmodern trends in Bible interpretation seem far removed from the splendid Reformation cry to get the Bible into the hands of the common man so he can read it for himself.  Perhaps it is time to defend the individual once again.

One blog article I came across which I found interesting is http://rhettman.com/?p=211