On Tue, 06-13-06 11:36 am
My posting has been so sparse of late that I feel as though I need to apologize to those readers of Eternal Perspectives that click by to see if I’ve gotten around to anything new. I don’t think my dearth of writing is due to the well being dry but rather to my wondering if I drink from the same well as most Christians in the cyberchurch.
Hear my confession (Part Uno): I get bored - quickly - with vast majority of the so-called discussions that take place online. Take, for example, the current skirmish that could erupt into a genuine massacre at any time. (I say “massacre” not because one side is going to so devastate the other, but because it will be yet another instance of the Name of Christ being sullied as two or more bloggers attempt to tear theological limb from theological limb from one another. Shades of the Black K-nig-it. Not a great testimony to either the love or unity to which we are commanded.)
The simmering feud to which I’m referring, of course, is the “Name-that-Beast of the Week in Revelation” between Tim Challies, Joe Carter, Andy Jackson, and the sometimes-incindiary posts of John Schroeder. Tim says the Roman Church “seems to be,” “might be,” “could be” the Beast, or, uh, antichrist, I mean some metaphorical being from John’s final writings, while Andy says, “no way.” Joe takes Tim to task for being illogical in his post and John faults Tim specifically and generally for hedging his statements behind statements with plausible deniability. iMonk comments that he’s in favor of people saying what they mean and meaning what they say, i.e., speaking dogmatically and not tiptoeing around. This is not surprising coming from Michael, who is anything but hypocritical in this regard and could be the poster boy for straight talking - even if sometimes his message might be a tad bent. Like mine. And yours.
Regardless, I find all of this tediously boring and an utter waste of time and talent. Is this what Paul meant when he told us that we should be “making the most of your time, because the days are evil”? I seriously doubt it.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that I have been able to accurately identify the Beast of Revelation. After years to exegetical, historical, and theological work - and also reading the Gnostic gospels and even The Da Vinci Code - I determine that the Beast of Revelation is Alec Baldwin, erstwhile actor and expert on everything.
(Now, I could have picked Ann Coulter except (a) the Beast seems to be male and, unless I need new glasses, there’s not much about Ann that looks masculine, and (b) I like Ann a lot more than I like Alec.
I’m also confident that some of you have noticed that I put Alec on the right and Ann on the left: this is what’s known as irony in my own sardonic, iconoclastic mind.)
At any rate, so I determine beyond any doubt that the Beast of Revelation is Alec Baldwin - and maybe even that Ann Coulter is the whore of Babylon. Now what? What do I, as a Christian, do about this amazing discovery? First, of course, being pretribulational in my theology, I have to make some changes to my eschatology. Nothing too earth-shattering about that. I also might have to change my feelings about Ann but, again, it’s not like we exchange Christmas cards or she has me on speed dial.
So what’s the point? Knowing the identity of the Beast or whore doesn’t change my life one bit: I’m no more responsible now than previously to love people, share the gospel, care for the poor and needy, be a faithful steward of creation, and live a holy life. The only benefit, as far as I can tell, is that I have ruled out myself as either the Beast or the whore, along with a lot of others. I suppose I’m freed from having to love Alec or Ann, but - and this is a horrible confession (Part Dos) I am about to make - I really don’t pray for either one of them anyway.
That may make me a horrible Christian but, thanks to my discovery, it doesn’t make me the Beast or the whore.
Whew!
So I languish in my thoughts about whether or not to spend my time trying to talk sense into people who know more than they understand or need to establish an identity by being contrary. I’m not sure that is the wisest investment of my time or a practice of “making the most of” my time during these evil days.
Thus, posting may continue to be sparse. When I do write something, however, I hope it will be something of a reality check for those of you who do read. One of my missions, as described in the header of Eternal Perspectives, is “searching for sanity in a Christian culture gone mad.”
When the patients are running the psych ward, it’s not easy.
Related Tags: Catholic, Beast, Antichrist, Revelation
June 13th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Mike,
I’m glad you took the time to post. I’m guessing most believers feel as you do in the matter of the beast of Revelation. When he is revealed, I know who I will be standing with, or most probably, behind.
June 14th, 2006 at 6:39 am
[…] Beastly (and whore-ish?) thoughts on Revelations from Mike at Eternal Perspectives. […]
June 14th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Your post makes clear that the act of identifying these people is not, in itself, significant to the pretribulational premillenialist. I agree, and I consider this type of debate among pretribs to be pointless.
In fact, that is one of the complaints against pretrib eschatology, that it makes the prophecies in question quite irrelevant to anyone not living in that particular dispensation.
You suggest that knowing this information would lead you to change your eschatology, but you don’t carry that proposition through to its logical conclusion. If you were living in the times described by the revelation to John, you might not be so disinterested.
Likewise, the discussion among the other bloggers seems to dance around the eschatological differences.
June 14th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
David:
I don’t think I follow you, or else you don’t follow me.
My conclusion (logical or otherwise) is that, regardless of whether I’m living during a particular dispensation or not, it does not change my responsibilities and stewardship before God. That is the conclusion: the effect of prophecy is to produce holiness, not ideas or debates about who is who.
I’m not sure, either, what it is about which you believe I am “so disinterested.” My interest is in fulfilling the purpose God has for me (not some specific, individualized mission, but His call for holiness) and I don’t think living in the dispensation of Promise, Law, Grace, or the Kingdom changes that. I’m very interested in holiness and I don’t think living in the Tribulation would make me suddenly obsessed with who is in what role.
I’m not rebuking or rejecting what you have said, only trying to clarify what I have said and to understand your comments.
Thanks for your comment and the obvious thought that went into it.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:01 am
I would agree that one’s personal responsibilities before God are unchanging. When I read the Bible, I reflect on my relationships with God, with my fellow believers, and with the world as a mission field.
However, many fellow believers press me to consider the Biblical approach to my relationship with worldly authorities. They claim that all worldly authorities, or some anyway, merit my loyalty as proxies for God’s grace and power. They claim that holiness requires not merely peaceable and orderly conduct, but unquestioning obedience and fealty to certain worldly authorities.
Some views of the Reformation, notably that of the Roman Catholic Church, cast it in precisely this light, as the struggle over which worldly authority should be supreme in the hearts of men. The debate over the identity of the Beast, framed as a choice between a man in 70 AD or one in 1642, was at the heart of this struggle.
I am still conflicted on this question, but my default position is that I owe worldly authorities only my peaceable and orderly conduct, and no fealty at all. Thus, I am quite disinterested in politics.
However, when I hear someone claim that a certain political leader or organization will bring peace to the world, or that a certain religious leader or faith will unite all men in spiritual fellowship, my complacency is disturbed. I am struck by the congruence of these claims with the post-trib interpretation of Revelation.