I Can't Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: An Eschatological Co-op

This article is the final part of a three-part series on the pre-trib rapture. Be sure to check out part 1 and part 2 if you missed them.

One of the more gracious articles written on Left Behind's coattails over the last few days had this golden nugget in it: “We need to go out of our way, as Christians, to make sure we don’t explicitly or implicitly demonize the views of other believers on doctrines that are secondary to the faith.” The warning was written to those who believe in a pre-trib rapture and we would do well to heed it. Of course, it applies equally to those who disagree with the pre-trib position. But in this final article in the series, I want to encourage us to go beyond simply not demonizing other positions. I believe we ought to learn to appreciate them—to learn from one another in a sort of eschatological co-op.

Our views on eschatology ultimately come down to how we interpret various passages of Scripture. Again, we ought to each do the hard exegetical work necessary to arrive at the position we believe best lines up with scriptural evidence. We also ought to have enough humility to not only acknowledge problem passages, but also to learn from one another. I personally have friends who represent every eschatological flavor under the sun. Despite our disagreements, our conversations and gracious debates have been of great benefit to me.  Each eschatological position has its potential weak points as well as strengths. We need to learn to see both.

What We Can Learn

Disregarding questions of textual interpretation for a moment, let's focus on the emphases and strengths of each position to see what we can learn from one another. 

Classic premillennialism (post-trib) offers an emphasis on courage and patience through suffering. Of course, Christians are called to the fellowship of Christ's sufferings in general. But there is a particular boldness in the eschatology that invites Christians to suffer under the severe trials described in the book of Revelation—and says that Christ is worth it. While one might not agree on the chronology, we can certainly learn from their readiness to suffer with Christ. This strength is something often missing from the western church. 

I believe amillennialism's greatest strength is in promoting a healthy balance in our relation to the world. This position sees both the millennium and tribulation period as figuratively taking place over the whole course of church history. Nowadays, one often hears in churches of God’s kingdom being both “already” and “not yet”. It is no coincidence that this understanding was largely pioneered by an amillennial theologian, Geerhardus Vos. Again, we may not agree with their interpretations of various passages. But we should emulate amillenialism's balanced approach towards the church’s existence in the world—falling into neither isolating pessimism, nor naive optimism.

Postmillennialism sees the establishment of Christ’s “millennial” kingdom as oсcuring through the church prior to His return. Hence, they believe the return of Christ is after (post-) the millennium. Postmillennialism's hopefulness for the power of God’s work in the world through the church is inspiring. One may disagree with their statements about the consummation of God’s kingdom work through the church. Yet their vision to see God’s kingdom manifest in every sphere of life is certainly one of the strong points of this position. We would do well to learn from this holistic approach to the church’s kingdom work in the world.    

It would only be fair along side these other views to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the pre-trib position as well. One strength is the emphasis on God’s mercy and faithfulness in delivering His church from wrath. Another is the sense of urgency and expectancy that an immanent return conjures in our hearts. Besides this, the pre-trib position has a clear and strong understanding of the fallenness of the world and sets the church forth as a counterculture. Of course, there are potential weak points. If we apply the truth in a selfish way, it can lead to isolationism from the world, or an overly pessimistic expectation regarding God’s work in the world.

I personally hold to the teaching of a pre-trib rapture, believing that it best explains various, sometimes difficult, biblical texts. You may or may not agree. And yet, we all ought to remain humble towards those with differing eschatological views. Humility also means we will remain teachable and allow other views to challenge and correct us. We tend to major in our own strengths and neglect our weakness. An approach that is willing to appreciate and learn from other eschatological positions will lead to greater maturity of faith for all of us. Let's remember that reflecting Christ's character of humility and grace to one another is more important than the timing of when we meet Him. After all, they will know we are His disciples not by our eschatology, but by the love we have for one another.

I Can't Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: What the Rapture is Not About

This article is the second part of a three-part series on the pre-trib rapture.  Be sure to check out part 1 if you missed it.

Many of the Left Behind follow-up articles that have come out over the last few days seem to have a few recurring themes: the rapture is a narrow, American position; it’s all about escapism; it promotes a prosperity-theology-esque avoidance of suffering; it doesn’t care about the rest of the world but just wants a ticket out, etc.  You may have noticed that none of these arguments are based on Scripture.  And yet, they are important to deal with as commonly met objections to the teaching.  Sure, there may be some “Christians” out there who fit these very un-Christian descriptions.  But many of those who hold a pre-trib rapture stance (myself included) completely reject these ideas.  In this article, I'll deal with some of these criticisms and take a look at what the rapture is not about, before briefly concluding with what it is about.

Arguments from Geography and History

Some of the arguments being leveled against the pre-trib rapture have to do with the history of the teaching.

For example, some have called the rapture an “American idea” and seek to discredit it on that basis.  First, the argument is not exactly accurate.  American theologian C.I. Scofield is credited with popularizing the teaching of a pre-trib rapture through his Scofield Reference Bible. However, John Darby, an Irish clergyman, is generally accepted as the first modern propagator of a clearly pre-trib rapture teaching.

But even if the argument was accurate, it's a hollow argument.  It's like saying that justification by grace alone or the priesthood of all believers are “German ideas” (via Luther) and thereby discredited.  The nationality of the first major propagators of any given teaching has no bearing on its validity.  One article I read recently in the wake of the Left Behind movie inferred that almost no one outside America holds a pre-trib view and would find such a position absurd.  As a missionary who has lived in the former Soviet Union for over a decade, I can tell you this is simply not true.  Sure, there is a wide range of eschatological beliefs among Christians here, just as there is in America.  But there are plenty who hold to a pre-trib view, and certainly even more who wouldn't “laugh” at the idea, even if they might disagree.  So, whatever very limited international experience the (ironically) American writers of these articles are speaking from, I guarantee it's not a representative sampling of the worldwide church. 

In a similar vein is the historical argument.  Those who criticize the rapture often like to point to the late date of it’s widespread acceptance—as if age is inherently a proof of scriptural accuracy. Yes, it is true that the teaching was only popularized in the 19th century.  However, one might just as easily point to the relatively late widespread acceptance of the whole “justified by faith” idea.  After all, where was this teaching during the first 1500 years of the church?  As Protestants, we would likely argue that it was clearly taught in the NT.  We would also underscore that it was taught by a few individuals at various points in church history, but later on was basically forgotten.  After all, isn’t that why we needed a reformation?  But the same basic arguments could be made for a pre-trib rapture.  Understand, I am not claiming that the idea of a pre-trib rapture is anywhere near as biblically explicit or as important as the idea of justification by faith alone.  It’s not.  My point is simply that “age does not a doctrine make.”

Ad Hominem Arguments

The second class of arguments being used against a pre-trib rapture in some recent articles are ad hominem arguments—attacks against the character of those holding the teaching rather than scriptural arguments against its content.

First, let’s deal with this whole “the rapture is all about getting out of suffering” argument.  If some have drawn the false impression from works like Left Behind that believing in Christ means getting out of suffering, they are in for a rude awakening.  Jesus Himself promised His followers, “In the world you will have tribulation”—not “might”, but “will”.  To follow Jesus at all means to “take up your cross and deny yourself.”  Even more blatant are Paul’s words: “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”  None of that sounds like a fast track to the easy life.  Movies like Left Behind, especially because they are taken out of a full scriptural context, may leave the impression that receiving Jesus leads to an easy life.  But most Christians who are serious about their faith do not hold any such delusions—whether they are pre-trib or not.

Another rapture article I read inferred that those who believe in a pre-trib rapture must have a heart calloused toward the world.  This is close to libel.  I’ll concede that some “Christians” who generally buy into a Jesus-wants-you-to-drive-a-Lexus-and-win-the-state-football-championship theology may look at the rapture as the ultimate ticket to easy street.  However, I don’t honestly know of a single pre-tribulationist who even vaguely sees the rapture as a cosmic “so long, suckers!” to the unbelieving world as we fly up to meet Jesus. 

In my experience, the perceived nearness of God’s judgment upon the unbelieving world generally makes believers more zealous about calling people to repent and receive God’s mercy.  Sure, sometimes that zeal may lead to misguided use of scare-tactics, but the same is true for Christians of any eschatological stripe.  After all, hell is a real threat regardless of when the rapture occurs.  My guess is that the only people gloating over unbelievers being “left behind” are people made of straw.  In other words, there are no such Christians.  They are figments of the rapture-bashers’ imagination.  Or, if they do exist somewhere, their gloating against non-Christians shows that they themselves will also be among those “left behind”.  That is, they do not actually know Christ nor share His compassion for the lost.

A final argument I need to address is the argument from “weirdness”.  I’m referring to the argument sometimes used against a pre-trib rapture position that it is supposedly far too outlandish or “goofy” to be scriptural.  Granted, movies like Left Behind don't help the whole “goofy” stigma.  But “it’s weird” doesn't pass for a valid theological argument.  We serve a God who became a baby, walked on water, spit in people’s eyes to heal them, talked with demons, and rose from the dead.  “Weirdness” is not an argument we get to use.  

What the Rapture Is Really About

I’ve already hinted at it, but let me say it very clearly: the pre-trib rapture is about the grace of God.  Accusing those who believe in a pre-trib rapture of not caring about the lost or seeking an easy escape is missing the whole point. 

Pre-tribulationists believe that the seven-year tribulation period described in the book of Revelation is a literal time period.  We also believe that it’s a time when God pours out His wrath on the world. (Rev. 6:16-17)  1 Thes. 5:9 says, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  We believe that we will not be recipients of God's wrath during the tribulation period because we are delivered from it by the Gospel of grace.  Granted, other eschatological systems may have other ways of explaining how the church is protected from the wrath of God in the “tribulation”. (If they don’t, they've got much more serious problems than the timing of the rapture.)  But the rapture is not about escapism—not any more than all believers being eternally rescued from the wrath of God is a question of "escapism".  The fact that other Christians believe God will rescue them from His wrath at all puts us in the same boat.  Therefore, our differences with those of other eschatological persuasions are ones of timing and method, not of essence.  We ought to all be willing to approach the question from this common ground and drop the arguments that are not rooted in Scripture.  They only serve to alienate us from one another and do nothing to biblically support any position.

In the next and final part of this series, I'll take a look how we can learn to appreciate one another's varying eschatological positions and grow in our faith through humble dialog.

I Can’t Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: A Level Playing Field

It seems like the latest film re-incarnation of Tim LaHaye’s Christian novel series Left Behind has brought the pre-tribulation-rapture-critics out of the woodwork.  Let me say this up front: I can’t stand Left Behind.  Granted, I have not seen the latest re-hash—nor do I plan to.  But while Nicholas Cage may be mildly more talented than Kirk Cameron (probably), I really doubt that a new cast, larger budget or improved special effects will help much.  If you are one of those Christians who just loves the books or movies, sorry.  Schmaltz is not my thing.

But my biggest qualm is that this latest rendering of very poor Christian “art” has turned the idea of the rapture into the latest blogosphere punching bag.  This is known as a straw man argument—taking a weak or even caricatured presentation of a position and knocking it down triumphantly.  Discrediting the idea of a pre-tribulational (pre-trib from here on) rapture on the basis of the Left Behind movie would be tantamount to saying that we ought to reject a post-tribulation rapture position because there are plenty of people that believe we need to go through it to accomplish our full purification.  It would be like bashing postmillennialism because there are a handful of prosperity gospel teachers out there who espouse it, or picking at amillennialism because it's the eschatology of those who worship Mary and accomplish salvation by the addition of their own works.  This is, of course, all just a bunch of mudslinging which does nothing to really ground any of these teachings in Scripture.  Neither does it prove the nobility of anyone’s eschatological cause.  On the contrary, it just makes us look petty and certainly does not reflect a spirit of Christian love and unity.

Rather than trying to exhaustively prove a pre-trib rapture position, I want to look at a few of the issues surrounding the recent discussion of this doctrine and hopefully encourage a more positive dialog on eschatological (end-times) questions.  In this first post, I'll be laying out why we should approach the various viewpoints on a level playing field.  In part two of this series, I'll deal with some of the recent criticisms of the teaching of the rapture and what the doctrine is really about.  And in the third and final post, we'll look at how we can actually benefit from one another's differing eschatological viewpoints in humble dialog.

Let’s Be Honest

I’ll be the first to admit that there are biblical problem passages for the pre-trib rapture view.  But there are problem passages for all the other eschatological views as well. 

For example, the post-tribulation rapture view (or so-called “classic premillennialism”) has to deal with the issue of “not knowing the day or the hour” of Christ’s return.  This position tends to take Revelation more literally than some other views.  It generally affirms belief in a literal, seven-year tribulation period.  However, if there is a literal seven-year tribulation period, one cannot help but conclude that counting down the thoroughly quantified 1260 days/42 months/3.5 years of Revelation (the second half of the seven-year tribulation period) would lead one to know the exact day of Christ’s return. 

The amillennial position does not escape problems either.  Passages in Isaiah foretell of a time after Messiah’s return where death and other remnants of the curse are nevertheless present on earth. These are a challenge for the most creative of amillennial interpreters to explain.  If, as they affirm, the second advent of Christ is the beginning of the eternal kingdom and total restoration of creation with no intermediate millennial period, then these passages seem to imply that there are a few things Christ doesn’t fix. 

Postmillennialism also has some scriptural challenges. (I’m not including the full preterist version in this discussion, which, based on the criteria of The Apostles’ and Nicean Creeds, is probably worthy of the label “heresy”.)  Not least among these challenges is the biblical picture of the return of Christ putting an end to the tide of wickedness and destruction, destroying armies of those who are in rebellion against God.  Certainly such passages do not bode well for a position that speaks of a golden age of ever-increasing Christian faith, morality, and societal improvement on the earth prior to Christ’s return. 

So when posts about the problem passages for a pre-trib view give the impression that there are no similar problems for other views, it just seems disingenuous.  My goal in these brief points is not to lay out an exhaustive defense of the pre-trib rapture position over against other commonly held eschatological views.  Neither is it to attack any of the aforementioned positions.  It is merely to say that we all have passages that are difficult to deal with.  While we ought not shy away from working through these texts and challenging one another to dig deeper, there is no justification for pretending like any position is as biblically airtight as the existence of God or that all other positions are laughable.

Next time I'll lay out some of the points of criticism being mentioned recently against a pre-trib rapture and look at what the teaching is really about.