As we explore the Forgotten Kingdom, we turn our attention to a necessary topic that continues to challenge, divide, and confuse modern Christianity – the End Times.
In many cases, the End Times has joined the growing list of topics we no longer discuss in “polite conversation.” Why is that? Is it about the positions themselves or a deeper heart reality?
After introducing the four primary views of the End Times at a high level, Brian explores some reasons why this is such a difficult topic and how we might move forward despite these differences as we journey together into deep discipleship.
TRANSCRIPTION
End Times and the Kingdom of God
Comedian Chris Rock created and narrated the sitcom “Everybody Hates Chris,” which ran from 2005 – 2009. It was semi-autobiographical, sharing stories of Chris growing up in New York City with his dad, mom, and two younger siblings.
Each episode follows the same formula – Chris gets into some sort of difficult or challenging situation at school, home, or in his neighborhood, and by the end of the half-hour, he’s blamed for whatever happened. It doesn’t matter if he is actually responsible or not; he’s blamed for it.
That’s pretty much the way I feel about my conversations with folks about the end times. Doesn’t matter what I ask, what I say, or how I try to explore the various perspectives, by the end of the conversation, I’m usually to blame.
So, Why Are We Talking About It?
Here’s the deal. This entire season, we’re exploring the First Primary Problem, the Forgotten Kingdom. At Soil and Roots, we maintain the primary message of the New Testament, and a prominent idea in the Old Testament is the Kingdom of God. So, the Kingdom should be Christianity 101, but it generally isn’t. We seem to have forgotten Jesus’ primary mission.
Wrestling with this Kingdom is a means for us to connect with God, others, and even ourselves. It’s a critical part of this journey we’re on as we discover the “more” to the Christian life than what we typically experience.
So far, so good. But why do we have to look at various perspectives of the end times, especially when these discussions can get technical, emotional, and potentially divisive? Because our assumptions and ideas about the end times impact our ideas about the Kingdom, and our ideas about the Kingdom impact our spiritual formation. We are integrated beings living in an integrated world. Whether they’re well-developed or not, our views of the end times shape our eight indicators and how we see and operate in the world.
It has become fairly common for some churches and theologians to avoid preaching, discussing, or even introducing the four main views of the end times. When I was growing up, it was a regular topic of conversation at church, at school, and even in the culture. That seems to have cooled quite a bit for a variety of reasons. Let’s face it, discussions about the end times can be rabbit holes from which very few rabbits actually return.
There is wisdom in not discussing the four primary end times views in certain settings. Some of the theologians and thinkers I follow refuse to publicly state a specific view, choosing rather to focus on how we should live in the Kingdom. And most of this season is going to focus on what it means to live in the Kingdom. I get that, though, again, our ideas about how we should live in the Kingdom are related to and influenced by our perspective of the end times. We need somewhere to wrestle with these important topics, even if it’s not in our churches.
I fear, but can’t confirm, that an underlying reason so many churches avoid very important but potentially controversial topics isn’t so much about protecting their flocks as it is protecting their balance sheets.
So, it seems a popular assumption nowadays is that our view of the end times is “peripheral.” In an effort to cultivate unity and avoid unnecessary confrontation, let’s set aside the peripheral issues and focus on what’s “central.”
Are end times views “peripheral”? Depends on what we mean by “peripheral.” Is a supposedly accurate view of the end times necessary for salvation? No. But is that all that our current Christian culture has come down to? As long as someone is “saved” and tries to live a moral life, does that now constitute what’s “central”? We’re integrated beings living in an integrated world. We can’t simply divorce our end-times views from the rest of our discipleship, as much as we might like to.
Unity vs. Detente
It seems like the list of things in the Bible we should no longer talk about is growing. There are four different views about communion.[1] There are four distinct perspectives on baptism.[2] Did you know there are at least seven views regarding Christ’s atoning work on the cross?[3] Talk about a can of worms.
How many views does worship styles have? On church architecture? How about creation, the power of the enemy, spiritual warfare, the gifts of the spirit, or women serving in the church?
If we continue to grow the list of things we won’t talk about because they might be “divisive,” we might just end up segmenting ourselves into all sorts of denominations and independent churches and groups, and we might just keep splitting up whenever someone says something we don’t agree with. Oh…wait a second.
I think we misunderstand what “unity” means. Unity doesn’t mean only hanging out with people who agree with my position. It means loving each other, celebrating what we have in common, and intentionally learning about and respectfully dialoguing about areas where we may differ.
There’s a difference between unity and a passive détente.
If our unconscious approach to our journey to become more like Jesus means we’re simply going to maintain a growing list of things we passively agree not to talk about in order to “keep the peace,” here’s an interesting question: how does that work out in a marriage?
Let’s say a husband and wife, over time, keep a conscious or unconscious list of things not to be discussed: sex, money, politics, how to raise the kids, the husband’s passivity, the wife’s nagging. Are those things “peripheral?” In one sense, they are if the reduced idea of a marriage is simply to stay married.
But is it good, does it cultivate oneness, does it create a relationship that flourishes and blossoms if they keep a running list of “peripheral” topics they silently agree not to bring up? You won’t find a single Christian marriage book, counselor, or seminar worth its salt that thinks that’s a good idea.
This is one of my concerns about modern Christianity – we’re “married,” but in order to avoid healthy conflict and confrontation and growth, we keep a long list of things we just aren’t going to talk about. And so, the relationship stagnates.
The courageous, truly unifying marriage appropriately and intentionally dives into these differences, not always to persuade each other to reach the same conclusion, but rather to deepen the relationship. The husband and wife may not end up agreeing with each other, but they will have a far better understanding of their spouse, most likely a fuller appreciation of their motivations, and a reduction in some tension, because at least each party has a clear, comprehensive understanding of the other person’s heart. A marriage is not about compelling both parties to agree on everything – it’s about deepening the relationship towards unity and oneness.
We grow through healthy, mature conflict. We grow through wrestling – with God, with others, with ourselves. The name Israel means “wrestles with God.” Wrestling with these things changes us – that’s the whole point. If we avoid the conflict, we avoid the growth. That’s not the path of a deep disciple. A deep disciple invites and engages in wrestling with God, others, and ourselves.
Let’s be upfront: many of us would rather not experience this conflict, this wrestling, whether in our marriages or in our close communities regarding our biblical beliefs. However, we need to explore why we tend to avoid it.
So, let’s start with a very high-level view of the four perspectives of the end times, and then we’ll dig beneath the surface of those convictions.
Doctrinal Security, Heart Insecurity.
The way the four perspectives of the end times come to those of us who aren’t full-time biblical scholars is generally how many ideas in the air eventually make their way into our soils. Powerful perspectives are introduced and developed over time through various cultural mountains, in this case, the cultural mountains of church and education. Over time, influential ideas emerge from institutions and make their way to the rest of us.
That’s the way End Times views work – they are continually being researched, reviewed, explored, investigated, and updated by very bright scholars who publish papers, teach at conferences, write books, and put out videos. This is their specialty. Those of us who don’t have the time or desire to dive into church history and various methods of interpreting Scripture rely on our trusted sources: usually our pastor, our preferred scholars, our Internet teachers, or our families.
By the time these views and ideas get to most of us, they’ve been distilled, and those of us at the bottom of this idea process function from some level of trust that those who distill them know what they’re doing. We aren’t necessarily walking around with all of the i’s dotted, and t’s crossed – we pull bits and pieces from what we hear at church or what we read, unless studying the end times is a personal hobby.
The Four Primary Views
To discuss these views, I have to make some generalizations. There are a large number of variations and nuances between the four views and inside each of them, but we’re not going to go into that much detail. So, if you hold passionately to one of these views, most likely you’re going to disagree with even some of these generalizations. Remember…everybody hates Brian.
Three of the views are named for the time when Christ will return, related to the biblical idea of the millennium in the book of Revelation. The term “millennium” itself is debated. Some hold that it means a literal 1,000-year period, while others believe it simply means a long period of time.
All four views hold to the second coming of Christ. Yippee – we can all agree on that.
However, a few of the views hold to a separate event called the “rapture.” The rapture is usually defined as a secret rescue of believers in Christ either before or during an upcoming period of terrible tribulation on the earth, prior to Jesus wrapping everything up.[4]
Nothing about end times discussion is ever easy, so the word “rapture” can be used in a few different ways. For our purposes, I’m using the word “rapture” in the way I just described, as a rescue event separate from the second coming when Christ comes to fully consummate the Kingdom.[5]
Because scholars, theologians, doctors, and lawyers love inventing and using long words to convince us of their intelligence, none of the labels for these perspectives are short. The three views related to the millennium are premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism.
1. Premillennialism holds that Christ will return prior to the millennium. At least the label makes sense. They generally hold to a literal 1,000-year timeframe where Christ will reign on the earth. Some premillennialists, but not all, hold to the idea of a rapture and a time of intense worldwide suffering and destruction prior to the millennium.
2. Postmillennialism holds that Christ will return after the millennium. This label also makes some sense. Postmills maintain that the world will become increasingly Christianized, leading to the triumphant second coming of Christ. Postmils don’t hold to the idea of a rapture or an upcoming period of worldwide war and collapse.
3. This third view’s name, Amillennialism, doesn’t really make a lot of sense. The “A” in the word means “no,” so someone with this view doesn’t hold to the idea of a literal 1,000-year period.
But it’s not that they don’t believe in the millennium at all.[6] Amils believe the millennium refers to the period of time between Christ’s Ascension and the Second Coming, so we would be living in the millennium right now.[7] Instead of Amillennialism, some use the phrase “Realized Millennium,” but that hasn’t really stuck.
Like postmillennialism, Amils don’t hold to the idea of a rapture or an upcoming period of intense tribulation.[8] They tend to take ongoing tribulation as a matter of course.
4. Just to make sure we’re thoroughly confused, the fourth perspective doesn’t reference Millennium in its name. It’s referred to as Dispensationalism. A “dispensation” is a period of time, and this view is named because it sees the story of the Bible unfolding in large blocks of time, or dispensations.
It’s generally considered to be a subset of the first view, premillennialism, so much so that, although I’m outlining four views here, sometimes you’ll find sources that only outline three.[9]
As one dispensational writer put it, “Not all premillennialists are dispensationalists, but all dispensationalists are premillennialists.”[10]
And we wonder why most of us don’t bother to dig into end-time views.
The reason I, and many others, think Dispensationalism deserves its own category is its enormous influence in America over the past 100 years. It has accomplished what none of the other views have: it successfully influenced not only the church but all seven mountains of culture in some pretty profound ways.
Dispensationalism holds to the secret rapture of the church from the earth[11], to a time of terrible tribulation in the future, and to the nation of Israel as separate and distinct from the New Testament Church. So, Dispensationalists and some premillennialists place special value and attention on the modern-day nation of Israel and its role in the present and the future.
Some Basics
Here are some things about all four positions (premillennialism, dispensationalism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism).
1. They all agree on some things, such as the fact that Jesus wins.
2. Obviously, they don’t agree on many things: they don’t all agree on the existence or timing of a future rapture and a period of great tribulation. They don’t always agree on the progression of the world between now and when Jesus consummates the Kingdom when we head off into the New Heaven and New Earth.
Dispensationalists view the world as heading toward a time of great chaos, bloodshed, and upheaval prior to the second coming, while postmillennialism holds to the idea that the world is ultimately winding up and becoming more Christianized. Obviously, those are two pretty different views. Premils will vary in their view of where the world is headed, but tend to see a future time of tribulation ahead, and Amils tend to see the world moving more in cycles.[12]
Many people I run into don’t realize such differing views exist, and that makes sense. If you grew up in an environment or go to a church that holds to amillennialism, you may not know what a “rapture” is and why some Christians are so interested in current events in the Middle East. If you grew up or go to a dispensational church, you may be stunned that some Christians reject the idea of a rapture and aren’t particularly interested in modern-day Israel.
In many cases, these outward signs of end-time views aren’t even that specific. Some Christians have a vague notion that they should pay attention to the news and watch for various signs because the world is heading towards catastrophe, while others wonder what all the fuss is about.
3. In general, premillennialism and dispensationalism have a lot in common. As I mentioned, dispensationalism is generally considered a subset of premillennialism. Likewise, amillennialism and postmillennialism share some features. They share some underlying assumptions and conclusions.
4. There are various subcategories and interpretations within the perspectives themselves. In some cases, they’re named. For example, different types of Dispensationalism are generally recognized: Traditional, Revised, and Progressive.[13]
5. Every perspective has undergone some measure of change over the years, some more than others. Various influences impact theological scholars, including new findings in archaeology, studies of various ancient manuscripts and the original languages of the Bible, and the ongoing debates and dialogues within the perspectives themselves. Again, these types of changes normally take a while to reach the rest of us, if they reach us at all. Ideas that are generated in elite cultural institutions tend to take a long time to seep into our soils.
6. The various perspectives have ebbed and flowed in popularity and geography throughout time. I was listening to a podcast hosted by a premillennialist, and he thought that somewhere around 50% of Christians are dispensational in one form or the other at present, at least in this part of the world. If you study church history, you’ll find different variations of perspectives in varying degrees of popularity in various parts of the world.
Alright, clear as mud. As usual, I’ve included a number of sources in the endnotes for the written blog for this episode, so if you want to read more, you can find them there. But, frankly, you can just search online for any of these terms, and you’ll be presented with more information than you can possibly consume.
So why don’t we normally connect our end-times views with our spiritual formation and discipleship, even though we acknowledge we’re integrated people living in an integrated world?
Why is the end times on the list of things we shouldn’t talk about, and why does that list seem to be growing?
Here at Soil and Roots, we explore the hidden, unconscious ideas that form our hearts, so let’s dig beneath our belief statements about the end times for a bit.
The Bedrock Beneath
Years ago, I was friends with a guy, and, over time, I began to notice a distinct pattern in our conversations. Almost every time we got together, he would make mention of how much money he made. It didn’t matter what we were talking about; he would somehow insert the fact that he was financially successful. We could be talking about oranges, sports, or architecture, and he would steer the conversation around to his financial success. He wasn’t conscious that he was doing it.
He’s a Christian, so he would use Christian phrases. “God has really blessed us.” “God has allowed us to flourish.” “I’m really thankful to God that He has allowed me to provide so generously for my family and to give so generously to the church.”
As deep disciples, we practice listening to hearts, not just to words. We explored this in Season 2. A deep disciple explores God’s heart, the hearts of others, and their own. We practice listening carefully to not only what’s being said, but what’s not being said, how things are said, and patterns of what’s said. So, I’ve been practicing listening to people’s hearts.
Over time, I became interested not in learning about how much money my friend makes, but why he has a desperate need to be seen as wealthy by those around him. What ideas and desires were driving his heart indicators? Remember, our hearts reveal their genuine ideas through our Eight Indicators: thoughts, emotions, behaviors, relationships, words, health, time, and money.
His powerful, unconscious desire to be viewed as wealthy suggests a deep sense of insecurity and of attempting to find his value and identity in other people, versus resting in his identity in Christ. In other words, his words said one thing, but his heart communicated something very different.
This week, I came across a video featuring a well-known, highly influential theologian. He was on a panel discussion exploring another topic we’re not supposed to talk about, gifts of the spirit, things like prophecy, tongues, healing, teaching, and administration. The panel was exploring whether some or all of the gifts mentioned in the Bible have ceased.
This theologian interrupted the discussion and said something to this effect: “Of all the people I’ve met who say they experience these gifts, I’ve never come across one with the right theology. That should tell you something about the gifts of the spirit today.”
Wow. We’ve all heard some arrogant things from the lips of some theologians and celebrity pastors, but that one makes my top 10. Though from a Heartview perspective, arrogance is usually a sign of what deeper heart reality? A profound insecurity. Or in the language we use here at Soil and Roots, distorted and diminished ideas of identity and value.
I often find the most dogmatic people to be the least secure. People who insist, who loudly pound on pulpits (bully or otherwise), and who demand that their perspective is the only correct interpretation are often dealing with much deeper heart conditions, and they generally don’t know it. I’m not arguing against biblical orthodoxy or the reality of objective truth, but you get what I mean.
I’ve wrestled with these same challenges as I attempt to journey into deep discipleship. That’s one of its core characteristics – a willingness to be brutally self-aware. Do I bring up the same things over and over with people, even when they have nothing to do with the conversation? If so, why do I do that?
To Wrestle or Not to Wrestle?
Here’s a tough question: do we hold so tightly to some of our Biblical positions because we’re convinced of their accuracy, or also because doing so provides our hearts with a sense of validation and affiliation with a pastor we love or a celebrity teacher we admire?
I have friends who strongly identify with each of the end times views: premil, dispensational, amil, and postmil. I network with many pastors, and I have pastor friends representing all four views.
At times, it has been difficult for me to find people who, if they have defined and certain views of the end times, are actually willing to wrestle with them. And by listening to their hearts, I’ve realized the reason why it’s difficult has nothing to do with their actual viewpoint. For many people, the views themselves or the people they admire who hold those views provide a deep-seated need for security, validation, identity, and value. And so, to engage in dialogue that may question or even threaten those perspectives is not a matter of intellectual discussion – for many of us, it rattles our hearts.
Here’s an example. A few years ago, a friend came to me to explore his view of the end times and get my thoughts.
I’m a naturally curious person. I’ve developed some probing, deep, very difficult questions about each of these perspectives. With his permission, I began asking him about his views, not to persuade him otherwise or to indicate my agreement or disagreement. I was simply trying to understand how his story and influences shaped his views, and how those views fit into his overall discipleship.
However, as soon as he realized I was asking some things that didn’t immediately resonate with his perspective, he effectively ended the conversation. His body language made it clear he was uncomfortable. I don’t know whether he was aware of other views, but it was clear he didn’t want to know anything about them.
Why? Because his heart was afraid; it was insecure. He was afraid a point might be made, or a thought raised that might cause him to question his own perspective, and he just wasn’t ready for that. We often ask for other perspectives or views not because we actually want to learn or to wrestle, but because our hearts desperately desire validation. And as soon as our hearts realize they may not be validated, our eight indicators begin to show it.
I can now recognize this behavior because I’ve exhibited this behavior. I like to be right or correct as much as the next person.
This is what makes me wonder if our lack of unity in Christian communities is always about the top-level issues themselves. I don’t think so. I think our propensity to create long lists of things we won’t talk about is far more about our hearts than our heads. It may relate more to an epidemic of hearts who fear being proven wrong, inadequate, uninformed, or embarrassed. It’s a fear that’s buried deep into our stories. Our hearts are confused – we somehow assume being right means being valuable. Thank God that’s not the case because I can guarantee you one thing – we’re all wrong about a lot of things.
This fear comes up out of our hearts in at least two ways: either we get aggressive and express our extraordinary certainty by claiming that our view is the only “biblical one,” or we simply disengage and refuse to consider other perspectives. The theologian who insisted anyone who experiences certain gifts of the Holy Spirit is obviously wrong is an example of the first. My friend, who asked me to talk about end times and then shut down the conversation, is an example of the second. And I can point to incidents in my own life where I’ve done both.
So, in either case, it’s just easier to bunker down with our camp and spend time with people with whom we agree. It tends to make us feel better to listen to our favorite Internet preacher who, with great authority and conviction, assures us our perspective is correct.
There is a far better third approach, but it requires us to dig beneath our favorite perspectives and confront the hidden ideas and desires in our hearts.
We could instead take the risk of truly immersing ourselves in others’ views to understand their hearts. I’m pretty sure this is the idea Paul was advocating when he talked about becoming all things to all people in order to save some. We immerse ourselves in another person’s culture and ideas to better relate to them and love them, even if it means risking our own sense of identity and value.
I’ve become increasingly convinced that our doctrinal differences may not be nearly as much about our theological statements as they are about our heart conditions. Exploring both is the path of a deep disciple.
Let’s Debate
Let’s say you attend a public, forthright church that is clear about its view of the end times. That’s fantastic. Kudos to them for taking the risk. Would your church consider hosting a civil, amicable debate every year or every three years, featuring a scholar representing each of the four views? And maybe your pastor is the scholar representing your church’s view?
Since so many people are interested and fascinated with the end times, wouldn’t it be deeply enriching for a congregation and the public to be exposed to all four views, and to watch the scholars wrestle with them? Better yet, the debate could allow the congregation to ask questions and interact with the scholars.
Why wouldn’t a church that stands firm on a perspective want to host such a debate?
I suppose a first response might be that they want to “protect their flock from incorrect views.” Good luck with that, considering we all have access to any views we want online. But if you’re convinced your view is the correct one, a debate should be a fantastic way to show why that’s the case, as well as provide great talking points to your congregation on how to address the other viewpoints.
Seems like some theologians and church leaders who hold firmly to their end-times views are content to sit in their communities, sometimes throwing stones via social media and short video clips rather than sitting down in an appropriate, civil environment to wrestle with these things with other respected colleagues.
Extra and Un
Speaking of throwing stones. A few friends of mine follow an up-and-coming group that identifies as premillennialist, though with a few twists. This group believes Israel and the church are separate and that there is a pending worldwide collapse on the horizon and, according to them, it’s imminent. However, they’ve concluded there is no rapture, no secret rescue for the church before or during this period of intense suffering. So, Christ will return to reign for 1,000 years, but we are going to experience extraordinary bloodshed, war, and worldwide collapse between now and then.
As usual, I asked some questions about the group, and my friends sent me to their website and podcasts, so I dug in. Their speakers are very sharp, convinced, and passionate, and I enjoyed learning about their position. However, as is unfortunately common, they criticized all of the other positions, though it appeared they didn’t really understand most of them.
One of the speakers claimed that at least two other perspectives were “extra-biblical” and “un-biblical.”
These two phrases are often used by people holding to one particular End Times view to describe those holding to other views. They are “unbiblical” or “extra-biblical.”
As I’ve mentioned before, every single sermon you and I have ever heard is, by definition, extra-biblical. Unless you go to a church that does nothing but read the Bible during the sermon, every message, book, podcast, lecture, course, Sunday school class, Bible study, and small group is extra-biblical. Unless all you do is sing the Psalms, every hymn or worship chorus you’ve ever sung is extra-biblical.
All four end times perspectives feature terms, ideas, and assumptions that are extra-biblical. We can’t possibly attempt to interpret, experience, or apply Scripture without commenting on it, attempting to categorize it, and trying to make sense of it. If you want to really get crazy, the order of the books of the Bible, the names of some of the books, and the chapters and verse numbering system can all be considered “extra-biblical.” Do we want to talk about different Bible translations?
It’s a term meant to cast doubt on perspectives we don’t agree with, and, unfortunately, it’s sometimes effective. But it’s essentially meaningless.
What about the claim that other perspectives are “unbiblical?” Webster defines it as “contrary to or unsanctioned by the Bible.”[14]
I’m not an End Times scholar, though I read and study a lot. Right now, I’m reading a dispensational book about how they interpret the Bible. I’m reading a postmillennial book about how they view biblical prophecy. In Episode 64, I quoted from a book I just finished by George Eldon Ladd, who was a premillennialist.
As much as I may or may not resonate with some of the perspectives, I would feel very uncomfortable claiming that any of the scholars who have helped shape or communicate them are “contrary to or unsanctioned” in their efforts to interpret the Bible.
D.L. Moody was considered a dispensationalist. He was a critical founder and driver of the modern international missions and bible school movements. If we aren’t dispensationalists, are we going to claim Moody was “contrary” to the Bible?
One of the greatest thinkers, philosophers, and theologians in American history, Jonathan Edwards, was a postmillennialist. That perspective is a minority view today, but it wasn’t always. Are we going to claim Edwards wasn’t familiar with or somehow abused his Bible?
What about Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, or Francis Schaeffer, all some form of premillennialists?
How about J.I. Packer, the author of one of the greatest books of our era, Knowing God. He was an amillennialist. Was he unbiblical?
I think much greater charity, thoughtfulness, and compassionate critique may be in order when we evaluate these end-times perspectives. With due respect, some of the greatest biblical scholars and theologians in recent history have come to at least four different conclusions. Before charging any one of them as being extra or un-biblical, we may want to dig a bit deeper.
Back to Debate Club
I think a great step forward for modern Christianity would be to head back to the high school debate club. If you were in the club, chances are your teacher gave you a simple instruction when you were preparing for your event: learn your opponent’s position as well as your own.
If we want to adopt one of the four perspectives and really advocate for it, great. We should also dive deeply into the other three, rather than just accept bullet points from a website we happen to agree with. I’m often shocked by the criticisms I read by authors and speakers who hold firmly to one position – they often misrepresent or misunderstand the other views, hopefully not intentionally.
And we should give all four positions the benefit of the doubt. That doesn’t mean they’re all correct – they can’t be because some of them hold opposite ideas. It does mean we accept that those who really get into the views have an earnest desire to seek God, understand His Word, and teach what they hold to be a correct interpretation. Sometimes it’s better to be wrong and bold than correct and timid.
Conclusions So Far
So, what conclusions might we draw so far?
1. We might need to look at the laundry list of things we’re reluctant to talk about, both in our marriages and our Christian communities. If we keep adding to the list of things we leave aside for the sake of some concept of unity, we may actually miss out on opportunities to grow in our love, concern, empathy, and understanding of each other. Unity and passive détente are two different things.
2. We may not have been aware of it, but there are four prominent views of the end times. They have some things in common, though they have some profound differences. And they have a meaningful impact on our spiritual formation, so they deserve exploration. Let’s also recognize that what you and I tend to absorb are distilled versions of these perspectives, and we lean on our trusted resources to help us make sense of them.
3. We should approach the End Times and any other strongly held perspectives with humility, charity, and grace. It’s fine to be passionate and convicted about our views, but let’s be generous with our approach. All four views have developed over time by some of the finest minds and intentional hearts over decades if not centuries. If we’re going to be critical, and we have every right to be, let’s do so with the mindset of a debate club member – someone who has saturated themselves in their opponent’s position so that, if need be, we could argue all sides persuasively.
4. If we’re practicing deep discipleship, we recognize our theological beliefs are not simply a product of our studies. We are integrated beings living in an integrated world. The hidden ideas in our hearts impact our beliefs. Our stories, our upbringings, our current experiences, and our relationships impact our theological beliefs.
In other words, our views of the end times are influenced by two things we explored back in Season 1: Ideas in the Air and Ideas in the Soil.
If we’re unwilling or anxious about exploring other views, why? Is it because we’re certain we’re correct, or because our hearts have a desperate need to be certain we’re correct?
And let’s make sure we consider the underlying assumptions and conclusions of the scholars who have developed and continue to develop the four primary views of the end times. Because as we move forward, we’re going to discover that the differences in the four views are not so much about isolated Bible verses as about much deeper questions. What is the Bible? What is its overarching narrative? How should the Bible be read and interpreted? Even when exploring these four views, we need to dig way beneath the surface.
As N.T. Wright noted, “Anyone who has worked within biblical scholarship knows, or ought to know, that we biblical scholars come to the text with just as many interpretative strategies and expectations as anyone else, and that integrity consists not of having no presuppositions but of being aware of what one’s presuppositions are and of the obligation to listen to and interact with those who have different ones.”[15]
Let’s get to wrestling.
[1] https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/four-views-of-the-lords-supper
[2] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/four-views-on-baptism/
[3] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/history-theories-atonement/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture
[5] https://billygraham.org/answer/what-is-the-rapture/
[6] https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-is-the-millenium-revelation-20/
[7] https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.cfm
[8] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/views-of-the-millennium/
[9] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/views-of-the-millennium/
[10] Vlach, M., (2023) Dispensational Hermeneutics, (p. 20). Theological Studies Press.
[11] https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/christs-return-and-rapture-evaluating-dispensationalism
[12] https://effectualgrace.com/2015/09/28/a-brief-overview-of-amillennialism/
[13] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/dispensational-theology/
[14] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unbiblical
[15] Wright, N. T. (2005). Scripture and the Authority of God (p. 11). Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
