Left Behind: when will it finally end???

When will the hyper-cataclysmic-dispensational-militaristic debacle called Left Behind finally end?  Apparently not yet.  Where's the rile of Ratzinger when we need him to set straight the inaccuracies of such twisted eschatology? 

The new game Left Behind: Eternal Forces has been released and it comes with it's fair share of controversy...who'd uh thunk it? 

"The game is set in New York City after millions of Christians have been transported to heaven. Players are charged with recruiting, and converting, an army that will engage in physical and spiritual warfare with the Antichrist and his evil followers." 

It's sure to make a splash considering the north American obsession with this type of off base eschatology made popular initially in the 1800's by John Nelson Darby.  I posted a short NT Wright article a while back that bids farewell to such bad theology and it's worth a glance to learn the general problems with the LB line of thinking. 

Another link to sadden lovers of good theology...

To borrow Andrew Jones' question this morning...

Some say the Left Behind video game encourages prayer.others say it promotes violence and intolerance.  What do you think?

Comments

[dh]

Who is NT Wright and you to say that LB is bad theology? Also, the view of this is beyond John Darby. The belief of this type of eschatology was around long before Darby. His view happens to be the extreme not unlike labeling all Calvinists the same when there are varing degrees of Calvinist (hyper-Calvinist, etc.) To label indirectly that LB is John Darby theology is just a gross overgeneralization. Even the first century church anxiously awaited the physical return of Christ and the subsequent physical resurrection of the Saints.

[dh]

It's worth the glance to observe the bad theology of "The New Perspective of Paul" and how that presents problems to the bad theology he has.

[john santic]

follow the link above and you will learn all about NT Wright.

I don't doubt that the early church and the church today are (not anxiously) but eagerly awaiting the physical return of Christ. The imagry Paul uses had been misunderstood. NT Wright is a historian and theologian and illuminates the necessity of apporaching scriptures from a historic perspective for accurate interpretation..

thanks for stopping by

[dh]

I have already read many of NT Wrights articles and books and have problems with it. I do like his defense of the resurrection but his analysis of Paul is inaccurate because he projects too much of the OT theology onto the Epistles when the fact is when Jesus came on the seen much of the theology changed in light of what Jesus said and the God breathed inspiration that Paul said in the Epistles. I see his perspective, while historical, as not being accurate in light of what is word for word stated in the Epistles and other Scriputres from the NT.

P.S. on anxiously awaiting. I only mentioned that term because that is the exact term used in Scripture.

I don't see the imagery as being misunderstood but I see NT Wright having predispositions and have those reflect his conclusions. When one reads Romans in light of ALL Scripture you can see that there is no misunderstanding but definitive understanding of what God is saying. The fact is Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the NT were paradigm shifts from the OT. Much of the theology of the OT was incorrect with regard to the resurrection, atonement, heaven/hell, etc. and were actually misinterpretations of the OT. The NT goes into more detatil these things so to project the OT people thoughts outside of Scripture onto the NT promotes an inaccurate view as projected by NT Wright than looking at the OT and NT together with no incorrect theology by people outside of Scripture.

Extra-biblical sources from people shouldn't always assume to be correct in light of Scripture. NT Wright assumes that in the case of his "New Perspective of Paul".

[john santic]

NT Wright is getting at using extra biblical sources to bring the biblical sources into perspective. Understanding the social and political ethos of the times can (and does) shed much light on interpretation. The NT can not be understood outside of the OT and when Paul writes he is writing out of the imaginantions of the people...

[Scott]

Hi guys, interesting conversation. I haven't read "new perspective on Paul" but am familiar enough with Wright's other works to feel like I've got a sense of the conversation. i'm feeling like mixing it up a little bit...so let me make a few comments:

john and dh, i find it interesting how much you are running this whole conversation through the grid of "correct" theology. and "misinterpretation" versus "correct interpretation". what is meant by that? i think we all can agree to the bible as God's Word, as authoritative for Xn faith and practice, and--even "infallible" at that. at the very least, i think we might say that whatever "correct" theology is, or the "right interpretation" must be demonstrated to be biblical. if you can agree to all this, then what sense do you make of 1-2 chronicles and 1-2 samuel--1-2 kings? or the difference between john and matthew? in john, Jesus disrupts the temple as one of his first public acts, in matthew it is clearly connected to his death. it is unlikely that one could get away with that twice...and that he could do that at the beginning of his ministry and then teach there later on. and what do we make of differences in ot histories? what is the "correct" interpretation of historical events?

the reality is that eyewitness accounts are always embodied accounts--from a particular perspective. moreover, (as our newscoverage always points out) objectivity is an impossibility, a modern fable. as humans, we think in terms of narrative, and so we take historical "events" and make meaning out of them--make sense out of them--by placing them within a narrative framework. that is what the biblical writers did--convinced that God was at work in history, they told the stories of God's revelatory work in and through his people. and each of the storytellers represent their own social location.

i know that in some circles, what i just proposed can be called "dangerous" or "undermining the bible" and yet, i cannot see how this is problematic for having a high view of Scripture. and the fact that our Bible comes to us with such embodied and perspectival narratives seems to assert that God is not afraid of such a variation of perspectives either. in fact, all that we know about God's means of revelation is through the particular and the embodied. He created for himself a people to be priests to the whole world, he took on human flesh and so embodied a particular person, gender, nationality, and social situation. and as his Gospel took root in other cultures, it took on new shapes.

i could go on, but i think you see my point. when we get so worked up over "correct" and "incorrect" interpretation, over "good" theology and "bad" theology, what are we getting at? what are we trying to do by that? it has never been theology that saves, but Jesus Christ--praise be to God! i think in this debate, we cannot help but read our modern prejudices (and maybe me, my postmodern) into scripture, by trying to master it, stand over it, read it in light of ALL scripture...but what does that mean? can we read Romans in light of "I sat by the river babylon and wept" or the political intrigue of david that Kings almost seems to glorify? i don't think so. i think we can read scripture in light of some scripture, but as finite human beings, we must make decisions about what our hermeneutical grid is going to be.

i propose, then, that we continue this conversation but with a touch more self-critical humility. maybe we can learn something from left behind, or from nt wright's reading of paul. in fact, i'm certain we can. but let us also be critical enough with ourselves and our own social location to know that we are hopelessly embodied and social beings (actually, hopefully, because this is how God created us and declared it good). we can never be objective knowers and master-ers (bad word, i know) of scripture, or any other form of knowing. but we can stand-under the biblical narratives, and the historians-theologians-pastors that have all struggled as we do to know God, and to know him truly. let us learn from them, but please do not turn this into a conversation about whose position is "correct" or "bad" or whatever. that is ultimately not your judgement to make. when we do that, we turn a position into ideology, and it closes us off from the ways in which the Spirit might be at work today.

[dh]

I don't see Paul as writing from the imaginations of the people but is writing things that are totally God inspired and god breathed. I don't think looking at things that were incorrect theologically to help interpret things later on helps in the interpretation.

I think I might have written something that gave you a misunderstanding. NT is partly in light of the OT but many people who were interpreting things in the OT during OT times had it totally wrong. To assume that those people have it right and then project that onto the NT is where false doctrine and theology from NT Wright comes in. I also don't want to give the impression that the historical shouldn't be looked at. I just believe we should be careful in looking at the historical beyond what we should. In this example I'm giving later I'm not saying NT Wright believes in this but I think this analogy will help you understand what I'm getting at.

Gnosticism was strong in the third century but that is heresy. If we project that onto Scripture and look at the historical standpoint in such a way that we assume that the NT was written from that perspective or "New Perspective" then we are misinterpreting the NT so it is in the way NT Wright interprets (in that it is not God but NT Wrights interpretation) the NT using OT extrabiblical sources. Rather than looking only at the historical of the OT extrabiblical sources. He assumes that the OT extrabiblical sources was correct theology when we know from NT writings and Scripture that the theology from that changed. When one reads the OT in light of the OT and the OT in light of the NT you can see the consistency and correlation but it is clear that there was a dramatic theological change between OT and NT that is not acknowledged by NT Wright. Hense, that is why a majority of Jews didn't believe in Jesus as being Messiah because they didn't believe in the theological change and thus began stuck in their own incorrect interpretations and these are at the same time on issues beyond just the sole Jesus being Messiah like nature of Christ as God, Salvation pre Christ on earth and post-resurrection, etc., nature of sin and the fine-tune detail therein, etc.

[dh]

Well, I think we CAN be objective about Scripture. For me the differences you pointed out, while I'm not a Seminarian, there can be an explaination for the difference that is sufficient and thus shows that there is actually no differences between the passages. I have always stated that there is no difference between the Gospels and thatthe Gospels are in fact synoptic. The only difference is the personality allowed by the Gospel writers. I think one should pursue correct andreject bad theology. I believe that it IS the Spirit that determines this but much of what I readthat is bad theology is not from the Spirit in that it projects an inconsistency of Scripture thatis in fact not there. I also think that much of Scripture is in fact not a narrative but an actual account with the personality of the writers alowed but not in a contradicting way. IT is beyond being a storyteller but an actual account of what actually happened in history. I think that is where there is a difference. The apparent differences between the passages (Matt./John, 1 Cron/1 Sam11 Kings,etc.) are just that APPARENT differences and I believe strongly that there is a noncoontradictory, consistent explaination for this apparent difference and that the Spirit DOES move within that literal context.

You said "... Gospel took root in other cultures, it took on new shapes." and my statement is that manu of these "new shapes" were not Biblical, heresy, false doctrine, etc. and much was condemned by Paul and others who ARE more dedicated to heart, soul and mind to Christ and the Gospel. Another example is Gnosticism and other false doctrines that were prevelent during 1st-3rd century not unlike the other false doctrines of the OT that NT Wright uses to confirm his understanding of the "NEW Perspective of Paul". These doctrines should be rebuked theologically but at the same time historically can give insigth but only to the falshoods people were falling trap to and how they overtime overcome these falsehoods. Using what actually was "false doctrine" historically to support a new idea is in my opinion like leaven spoiling the whole bunch. We must bevery careful on that. We should not look so much at the historical that it leads to acceptance of what actually was determined by the Spirit to be false later.

This doesn't contradict what I said earlier: While we won't know 100% everything we sure can get a good percentage like 95-99% to get enough definitive to put aside any apparent inconsistencies, subjective, over-narrative ideas that are not actually there. Just some thoughts that are honest and humble from what I read.

[Scott]

dh, i appreciate your thoughtful comments. but i would like to challenge your doctrine of inspiration, and what i think would be your doctrine of the incarnation. i think what is at stake here is not how much we can or cannot know, but how it is that God has and is revealing himself. the question is "how is God related to the world?" and i think your response demonstrates more of an Islamic God-world relationship than christian.

Islam only allows "correct" doctrine in one language and "correct" practice in one form. however, from its inception, christianity has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to new settings. whereas some of these adaptations were clearly not in continuity with what God was/is doing in and through Christ, many of them were. there were many slightly different proposals for what should be included in the canon...and revelation almost didn't make it. luther thought james shouldn't be in the canon, and decided to cut out some of the apocryphal books from the catholic canon. my point is that there has always been some diversity in christian thought about the canon, and i don't think that this has to be a problem for our faith or for saying that the bible is inspired by God.

the point is, that the doctrine of the Trinity allows us to affirm that God is at work not just in the universal (he is, afterall, the Truth, Love, etc) but also that God incarnates himself in the particular, the finite, the subjective. Jesus was just one human being. He was not the "universal man" but a particular Jewish man with a particular jewish worldview at a particular time in history. our churches are imbedded, also, at aparticular time in history with particular theological questions and issues that, say the reformers, would find incomprehensible. and yet, Jesus' work is once and for all--it is universal in scope. and the reformers and us worship the same God even though we do not see the world in the same way.

my point in all of this is to raise the question of the incarnation as an act of revelation--what does this tell us about how God relates to the world and particularly to human culture and finite existence. i don't think we have to adopt an ahistorical view of inspiration and christian belief to hold onto belief that the bible was inspired. i don't think we have to reject the narrative reality of scripture to hold onto it as God's Word and True.

let me just throw one more thing out there--not to be facicious (sp) b/c i really respect your argument...but if we can know things "objectively" and you are rejecting "subjective" knowledge--how come we continue to interact with so many "i think" phrases? our perspective is something we cannot escape, and that is precisely the place where God meets us. Thanks be to God.

[john santic]

Scott, thanks for joining the conversation, there is much that really needs conversation in the scope of this broad and complex discussion and that is sometimes difficult to do via a blog.

I appreciate both of your comments and we can come away from this dialogue with a comon understanding that there are differneces in the way we perceive/interprate scripture...explains the many traditions and styles that can co-exist within christianity...

I asked a question in the original post about the LB video game...does it encourage prayer, or promote violence and intolerance?

[dh]

Scott, I think the difference is that Jesus wasn't just one human being but He was GOD. He was fully God AND fully man yet without sin.

I totally condemn your comment that my view is Islamic in any remote way and I'm a little offended by that statement. While Christianity has adapted they never changed the foundations, they may have attempted to change them, but nonetheless they didn't change. I also think you are incredibly nitpicky on the I think part. Okay it should be stated I believe.

Scott I feel you are a little flattery with your "respect your argument" statement. Your response to my statement doesn't seem to show respect. The point is we must be careful to discern what truly is or was of God and what isn't and Paul addressed many false doctrines, false teachers, etc. Many of which were Gnostic and hense apocraphical books written by them the Apostle Paul, and God by the Epistels being God breathed by the statements in the Epistles, rejected those teachings and books from that and many other groups presenting "another Gospel than the one preached to you".

I think what forms your thought pattern on this is the belief that Jesus was just "one human being". This really should be rethought in that Jesus was God on earth and was human. He was fully god and fully man and is physically and Spiritually alive today from the resurrection.

It seems the concept of rejecting "false doctrine" is rejected by some on this thread yet Scripture rejects "false doctrine" in the Epistles. It seems to me that to be true to Scriptures we DO need to determine proper doctrine and reject false doctrine to actually be true to Scriptures. I think that is where Scripture in light of Scripture and the Holy Spirit come in and the discernment of mans knowledge vs. God's knowledge that is the difference.

You state and I'll rephrase this as a question: "how it is that God has and is revealing himself? By Scripture in light of Scripture and Holy spirit revelation that is consistent with Scripture. That isn't to say I don't believe in the supernatural work of the holy spirit and the outpouring thereof it is just those things, if of God, have to be such as to not contradict Scripture and the nature of God. Miracles happened in the Bible miracles can happen now. Revelation happened in the Bible and revelation happens now but all of those things, if of God happened on a consistent noncontraditory basis within Scripture.

[dh]

On thr question of the game: I believe it promotes prayer, doesn't promote violence and doesn't promote intolerance. I think I might have earlier in the thread answered the question but in terms of emphesis on the thread it did sort of digress.

[Scott]

dh, i did not mean to offend you. and i am not trying to flatter you. i do respect your comments, and the way you are thinking through these issues. i did not mean to provoke you, but am trying to speak truly about God also. i do not think our conversation is moving in a helpful direction, and so will resist responding to any more of your particular points, though i do stand by what i said and would enjoy more converstion if we could do so in a more fruitful way. peace, scott

[dh]

Scott, I appreciate your care in this. I will take back (after this response) the "flattery", etc. that I said. It was the comparison in any small way to Islam that I reacted to. I don't see at all the similarities or the correlation you are perscribing. While all the other statements we discussed showed our agreement and lack of agreement, I think a taking back of that particular sentence would allow or would have allowed a more fruitful conversation. I too would enjoy more conversations with you and other than the "Islamic" comparison would have enjoyed this one. You want to be careful with analogies and comparisons that the example given might offend. I in the future conversations with you will promise to proceed with care with my analogies and comparisons as well. peace to you Scott. :) Have a wonderful weekend. We're cool, :)

[SJR]

This statement is posted from an employee of Left Behind Games on behalf of Troy Lyndon, our Chief Executive Officer.

There has been in incredible amount of MISINFORMATION published in the media and in online blogs here and elsewhere.

Pacifist Christians and other groups are taking the game material out of context to support their own causes. There is NO “killing in the name of God” and NO “convert or die”. There are NO “negative portrayals of Muslims” and there are NO “points for killing”.

Please play the game demo for yourself (to at least level 5 of 40) to get an accurate perspective, or listen to what CREDIBLE unbiased experts are saying after reviewing the game at www.leftbehindgames.com/pages/controversy.htm

Then, we’d love to hear your feedback as an informed player.

The reality is that we’re receiving reports everyday of how this game is positively affecting lives by all who play it.

Thank you for taking the time to be a responsible blogger.