What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the God-denyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do?
Athanasius, On the Incarnation
As a typical secular teenager, Christianity introduced me to a God who’d interacted with humanity throughout history to offer a life greater than myself. This made a lot of sense to seventeen-year-old me. It still does. Christianity in America comes with a lot of baggage, though. Along with the powerful message of the gospel were a lot of strange ideas: a literal seven-day creation, the perfect and immortal biology of Adam and Eve, and especially that of a violent and terrifying supernatural end-of-the-world scenario so outrageous, it became a Hollywood production. Christianity seemed to, at some point, have conflated faith with magic.
Interpretations of end times prophecy have become increasingly more embellished and bizarre over the years, divorcing the pattern of a loving, redemptive God throughout history with one of seemingly pointless violence, judgment, and terrifying death. Yet to not have faith in a brutal end times means, in many churches, that you don’t have a Christian faith at all. This left many Christians of my generation to either go along with the weirdness and ignore the obvious oddities of Christian doctrine, or – worse, to fully embrace them and make one’s Christian identity based on the willingness to blindly accept outrageous ideas. The latter was often socially rewarded as “faith”. This was a package deal, though, for many young Christians – who are now adults with a literal end times engrained in them.
Many Christians are still stuck here, as it is still the only thing many American churches teach today, and in an increasingly embellished and political way. The vast majority of church going Christians have zero academic training in interpretation of scripture, nor want it, but this hasn’t stopped them from embracing whatever they read on the Internet, or the popular movements within their church. Denominationalism, while having some benefits, has also become one of the greatest vehicles of confirmation bias in the church, allowing for tribal systems of beliefs to flourish and go unquestioned by parishioners. This has become more extreme in these difficult times. It is not uncommon to hear, within otherwise normal Christian circles, that masks take us one step closer to Sharia law or that COVID vaccines and W.H.O. closer to a one world government, to the mark of the beast, or any number of other themes in Revelation. It is also not uncommon to encounter opinions that Joe Biden is the Antichrist, that the National Guard [administering vaccines] is prelude to the new world order, or that believing the pandemic exists at all is Satan’s plan to deceive Christians en masse. Meanwhile, extremist groups spent several months planning – on public message boards – to assassinate the incoming president to usher in a new heaven and earth, based on many of the same beliefs. While the more extreme of these beliefs may be relegated to fringe cults, misguided end-times theories about masks, vaccines, and the Antichrist run deep in mainstream Christian churches. As one evangelical pastor put it, “Right now QAnon is still on the fringes of evangelicalism… but we have a pretty big fringe.”
This end-times farce is the result of a century of theological error, and has led the evangelical church into all kinds of misguided conspiracy theories. Visions of four horsemen riding across the world, a sudden secret rapture, and seven years of hell on Earth rest upon theological pillars of highly questionably origin. Academics in Christian studies have long been far too reluctant to call out the problems in theology that led us here, and that has damaged Christianity greatly. Yet such end-times concepts have no support in historic Christianity, and could be dissociated from Christianity altogether. By failing to challenge the incorrect assumptions this belief system relies on, many Christians will deny COVID vaccines and literally die on the basis of the theological system under which they were taught. It is a flawed and unfalsifiable system of theology – not Christianity itself – that is to blame. This post will attempt to tease those two concepts apart.
“If the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture.”
The City of God, Book 2
Not realizing it at the time, what I was taught as a young Christian was theology based on dispensational hermeneutics. This is more or less a framework for interpreting scripture, and is what Christian fundamentalism is based on. Specifically, dispensational premillennialism had been the popular theology of the day, even in the little Baptist church I had first found myself in. This framework is a form of interpreting Biblical scripture based on two key rules (or pillars): 1. Prophetic scripture is to be interpreted literally and 2. There is a distinction between Israel and the church. Literal interpretation dramatically rewrote large portions of scripture, giving birth to many of the contemporary ideas around the creation and destruction of the world. The second rule, an Israel-church distinction, then moved the timeline of many fulfilled prophecies into the future in order to fix the numerous problems introduced by the first rule.
Taking a literal read had been considered by a few patristic writers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Eustathius of Antioch, however there are some significant differences in what is done today. For one, the term literal had no clear prior definition, and often times simply meant “obvious” or “evident from the text”; it was also frequently used to contrast an accompanied “spiritual” interpretation. To many early Christian writers, the fact that a problem existed in a literal text was an indication that it necessitated a figurative interpretation. This suggests the same writers were also honest enough to admit there were problems with literal interpretation. Athanasius, in his Defense of the Nicene Definition against the Arianformulæ, argued “we ought to look at the sense more than the wording.” Tertullian, who was very adamant about many of the key literal arguments supporting the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ, specifically recognized prophecy as “generally expressed in figure and allegory, though not always” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch 19). Second, many writings, such as Eustathius’ De Engastrimytho contra Origenem, viewed Christ –as– the eschatology, rather than a prelude to it, and used such interpretations to explore what the universe meant in light of Christ, instead of predicting the future. The mere fact that many writers declined to make predictions about the future suggests their interpretation of scripture didn’t support such an effort. Lastly, the notion of an Israel-church distinction was nonexistent. The early church consisted primarily of the Jewish community. Certain Jewish sects, such as the Essenes, believed they were a remnant of Israel dating back to the Zadokite priesthood and we know many from this community adopted, and even influenced, Christianity as a natural continuation of their faith. Writings that referenced end times prophecy often framed the context and symbolism of the imminent tribulation of the Israel, and viewed Revelation as a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman Empire, which was happening out their windows. Even the more speculative of writers, such as Tertullian believed the millennial reign of Christ was already happening in a heavenly realm, and that the spiritual city of Jerusalem had been appearing at times over Judea. But most early church writers mentioned little at all about any kind of future millennium or rapture; even what Tertullian wrote didn’t come close to resembling the end times ideals that modern Christianity holds today; his writings were rather void of details at all. As L. Crutchfield, author and professor of early Christian history admits, “If anyone searches the fathers for a fully detailed, systematic presentation about the doctrine of last things, he searches in vain”. This is where fundamentalism greatly overreached.
We shall then be changed in a moment into the substance of angels, even by the investiture of an incorruptible nature, and so be removed to that kingdom in heaven…
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III
By reinterpreting all prophecy as literal, and creating the decisive theological bias to distinguish Israel from the church, dispensationalism created Christianity’s greatest anachronism. It recast entire collections of prophecies as unfulfilled that would have otherwise been fulfilled in Christ’s timeline through the fourth century, some even reinterpreting Old Testament texts to “pull forward” and replay events fulfilled before Christ. The net effect of this was that many prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, the destruction of the temple, the subsequent destruction of the Roman Empire, the imperial cult and emperor worship, and themes of patterns and forces that have operated throughout history (such as the symbolism of the four horsemen) – were transformed into what modern Christians see as veiled prophecies about a terrifying and imminent end of the world playing out now – regardless of whether you lived in the 1920s or the 2020s.
How did the terrifying events of history end up reinterpreted into a modern narrative? Dispensationalism adopted what’s called progressive revelation – but applied it backwards. Progressive revelation is the idea that God reveals his plans in fuller depth in newer writings (i.e. progressively). Traditionally, this means that newer texts are used to explain how the older texts were fulfilled. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, does the very opposite – futurism. Futurism is a misapplication of progressive revelation, where instead of using the New Testament to explain the Old, scripture was turned forward facing, read as breadcrumbs about the future explained in a context far beyond their boundaries. For example, instead of using Revelation to interpret Daniel, dispensationalists use Daniel to “decode” Revelation similar to a gnostic text about the future. This is where creative license took over; after all, if prophecy is more progressive over time, there are no constraints in applying the texts to an even grander revelation of the future. Yet even the book of Revelation itself even discourages such an interpretation, asserting “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy” (Rev 19:10), insisting that prophecy is to be interpreted as all pointing to Jesus Christ and the gospel message.
Interpretation by this means created numerous problems in the structure of the canon, breaking entire systems of historically accepted concepts. This required added layers of explanation by introducing new and unsupported concepts to cover over the problems it created. As one example, a [literal] mark of the beast happens chronologically before the measuring of the temple – so they rebuilt the temple into the theology, even in the overwhelming absence of scriptural evidence. The “man of lawlessness” (who exalts himself over everything that is worshipped and sets himself up in God’s temple, 2 Thes 2:4) was no longer attributed to Titus (who did just this in AD 70, Josephus, Wars of the Jews, book VI, ch 6), but was reassigned as part of a future narrative to support this new theology.
In spite of its significant problems, dispensationalism ended up becoming popular in the American church and part of modern Christian beliefs. It’s easy to see how wide-eyed such Christian views can get when seen through the lens of prophesying the kind of terrifying world that exists when symbolism is interpreted literally. This is to be expected when you take books such as Ezekiel, which are influenced by strong Mesopotamian symbolism, pull them out of their ancient contexts, and apply a literal translation influenced by modern American dystopian culture. It has defined a Christian’s entire world view for much of the past hundred years, defined our politics, society, relationships, and now public health.
A Theology in its Infancy
Yes, I said about a hundred years of influence. To convey such stark concepts in Christianity, one might have expected this form of hermeneutics had been the authoritative viewpoint for a very long time. Yet dispensational hermeneutics has only been in existence since the mid-1800s, and only became widely accepted in the 1900s. By any standard, it is an incredibly young line of thinking. Concepts such as an Israel-church distinction and a two stage coming of Christ (e.g. a rapture) were ideas originally conceived by a Bible teacher named John Darby. This was around the same time that Charles Darwin published Origin of Species, which helped create a dichotomy where new scientific ideas and new theological ideas were put at odds with each other. Because Darby’s literal theology didn’t work in light of basic science, science became the new (again) enemy and Darby’s literal theology became the new “faith” in Christianity – even though his ideas had diverged from historical concepts of Christianity since the early church. Darby’s beliefs were radical and unrefined, but gained acceptance by some American evangelicals who felt that Darwin’s ideas threatened Christianity itself. This positioned dispensationalism as the savior against a science that, at the time, was married to a strong bias of atheism. Dispensationalism gained much more traction in the decades to follow, popularized by a lawyer-turned-theologian named Cyrus Scofield. Scofield was a sketchy individual, accused of accepting bribes, committing financial fraud, and later on in life giving himself a fake Doctor of Divinity title. A biography by James Canfield refers to him as an abject liar and opportunist promoter of baseless theology. It is unsurprising that someone with a lawyer’s background would resonate with the interpretation of scripture through a literal and litigious interpretation, even if it did not align with 1800 years of theology to the contrary.
There are four things to be considered… the height of spiritual doctrine; the dignity of those who teach it; the condition of the listeners; and the order of communicating.
Thomas Aquinas, On the Commendation of Sacred Scripture
In spite of its questionable origins, its lack of vetting, and its infancy, dispensationalism (and therefore fundamentalism) took hold in the early 1900s through the Niagara Bible Conference and the publication of the Scofield Bible, both of which Scofield had direct involvement in. This set the stage for dispensationalism to gain wider acceptance as society became more pessimistic through the Great Depression, World War I, and other events. Reinterpreting an end times set in the 1900s had obvious appeal: it offered comfort that the suffering of the world would soon be avenged, and provided fodder for a number of parallels to the current events of such a troubling time. No one could blame society in the 1900s for being tempted to parallel the Antichrist to Hitler, or the sufferings of the Great Tribulation to the horrible sufferings of the Holocaust, especially with a relatively new form of theology circulating that fit with current events. The more pessimistic society gets, the more likely it is to lean toward a fiery, terrifying end of world theology, especially when you have a villain. Common recurring themes in the world such as inflation, war, disease and genocide are seen by dispensational Christians as a concise sign of the end of the world, even though these concepts play out over and over again throughout history.
The church hasn’t always interpreted scripture this way, though. Dispensational hermeneutics is fundamentally at odds with an older and more accepted form of interpretation referred to as historic protestant hermeneutics, which has been the dominant approach to interpretation since the early church. The pillars surrounding this (more established) interpretation of scripture are: 1. The New Testament should explain the Old Testament (not the other way around), 2. Old Testament concepts are reinterpreted in the New Testament, and 3. Scripture (and especially prophecy) is interpreted analogia fidei, interpreting the complicated and ambiguous biblical passages in the context of the more concise passages and patterns about the topic. Tertullian argued that “uncertain statements should be determined by certain ones, and obscure ones by such as are clear and plain” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch 21). This requires that scripture be interpreted without the prerequisite that all passages must be taken literally; some may be taken figuratively or allegorical (as appropriate for the text), and should be supported and clarified in the context of more concise verses in prior works. This is not unlike how problems were worked out in patristic literature; writers often evaluated problem passages on the basis of other scriptures and their understanding of God.
This form of hermeneutics – going back to the earliest of Christian history – paints an entirely different picture of Christianity. This interpretation gives license to be a Christian without having to accept a literal seven day creation, license to be a Christian without believing Adam and Eve started with immortal, perfect bodies1, and license to be a Christian without the notion of a violent, bloody destruction of civilization. The end of the world ideas of classical eschatology look incredibly different from dispensational premillennialism, and don’t include many of the themes of literal eschatology; attributing much of it to the timeline between the siege of Jerusalem and the fall of the Roman Empire.
This is not to suggest that miracles don’t exist in the Bible – they absolutely do; this hermeneutic model argues that events such as the resurrection of Christ and the virgin birth were clearly documented as literal, historical fact as opposed to the more figurative areas of end times prophecy. The historic protestant framework allows us to better suss out what is literal and what is figurative or allegorical, more importantly what prophecies have already been fulfilled by history and what, if anything, scripture has left in it to tell us about the future. Concepts such as a secret rapture, the Great Tribulation (seven years of suffering), rebuilding the temple, and a future Antichrist evaporate under historic Protestant interpretations. Why? Because these were literary devices created to fix the problems introduced by dispensational theology, taking creative license in scripture as if it is some fortune cookie about the future. Take things literally and, before you know it, you have to start explaining one wild literal prediction with another, even wilder one.
To best summarize the difference between the two hermeneutics is a concept I’ve already touched on: fundamentalism uses books like Daniel and Ezekiel to interpret Revelation as a prediction of the future, but historic Protestant interpretation uses Revelation to interpret Daniel and Ezekiel, to reveal God’s redemptive work throughout history, and especially as it pertained to Christ.
Who, then, is He Who has done these things and has united in peace those who hated each other, save the beloved Son of the Father, the common Savior of all, Jesus Christ, Who by His own love underwent all things for our salvation? Even from the beginning, moreover, this peace that He was to administer was foretold, for Scripture says, “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into sickles, and nation shall not take sword against nation, neither shall they learn any more to wage war.”
Athanasius, On the Incarnation
Speculation Run Amok
Many scholars who defend dispensationalism have argued that departing from a literal interpretation of scripture lends itself to speculation, but just look at what literal interpretation has done for speculators in the past hundred years. People thought Hitler was the Antichrist, and after the Third Reich failed to establish a thousand year reign on the Earth, the Vatican in 1944 issued a statement that millennialism cannot be safely taught. The Jesus Movement of the 1960s and 70s taught that the end of the world could happen at any minute, popularized by Hal Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth”, which connected dispensationalism with pop culture in an attempt to apply current events of that time period with eschatology. This led to asceticism, an unhealthy focus on supernaturalism, and the mindset of seeing the world as one imminent apocalypse – themes still present in many churches today. Many from this movement, now fundamentalist denominational leaders, later speculated the Y2K bug would usher in the apocalypse, leading many Christians to build underground bunkers and stock up on weapons in 1999. When that passed, Christians then adopted a widespread belief in 2008 that Obama was the Antichrist based on an off-the-cuff remark about the working class “clinging to their guns and religion”, leading to numerous assassination plots. Earlier this year, fringe conspiracy groups planned to assassinate President-Elect Biden to usher in a new heaven and earth, some believing the book of Revelation’s ten days of darkness began with Trump’s Twitter suspension. Today, otherwise intelligent Christians are refusing to take a COVID vaccine because of the strong anti-government sentiments modern evangelicalism teaches, or believe it is somehow related to any number of end times concepts that may cost them enslavement or eternal damnation. Both sadly and ironically, many have needlessly suffered and died because of these very beliefs. If historic protestantism is guilty of speculation, dispensationalism has been sensationally guilty of it. Dispensationalism gave Christians a square peg they are constantly trying to fit into something in the present, rather than looking at how it fit into God’s redemptive work in the past. This has kept the church needlessly preoccupied for a hundred years.
At the very least, one might think that because dispensationalism is bound to a literal reading, it would offer some guard rails to prevent speculation from running wild. Over time, however, many Christians, whom I mentioned have zero academic training in interpreting scripture, have found themselves unaware of the two mutually exclusive schools of theology and have layered symbolism on top of a literal ideology that relies on the absence of symbolism for its mere existence in the first place. As one example, literal interpretation otherwise dismisses symbolic ideas such as a vaccine, a tracking chip, or cashless payments representing the mark of the beast. If you held to strict dispensationalism, you’d believe such a mark would be a visible marking directly tied to the worship of Antichrist (some scholars believe this was a reference to emperor worship in the imperial cult, for example). It is also a parody to the sealing of the 144,000 referenced in Revelation, which a literal interpretation would require a visible mark on the foreheads of Christians before the mark of the beast came into widespread adoption. A literal chronology of Revelation would also need us to be “raptured”, or at least for the trumpet plagues of the Earth to have come (fires burn a third of the Earth, meteor destroys a third of fish, a third water poisoned, darkness over a third of day and night, and months of smoke and locust torture), and yet all of this happening while the temple (which was destroyed in AD 70) is still standing, so that it could be measured in Rev 11 – if you held to the literal ideals dispensational premillennialism offers. Obviously none of this fits. It’s fraught with problems.
Dispensational theologians are great conspiracy theorists too, however. To resolve such glaring inconsistencies with scripture, dispensationalism adopted the notion that this end times scenario actually happens to some future temple, inventing the notion that it will somehow be rebuilt some day. Yet this makes little to no sense for a savior who claimed to have replaced the temple with “something better”, and referred to the temple as only a shadow of his kingdom in heaven, which he brought through his coming with a new covenant. It makes no sense to a savior who, in a cruel irony, stopped referring to the temple as “my temple”, and called it “your temple” shortly before its destruction. It wouldn’t have made any sense to John either, that God would show him a vision of “some other temple” thousands of years later and not the one he knew to exist. You’d expect he’d have mentioned it as a new or restored temple. It’s very clear that Jesus’ intention was to depose the original temple and replace it with “something better”. So what can we make of all the speculation in the church? Many have conveniently adopted the constructs afforded them by dispensational hermeneutics while simultaneously abandoning the very pillars that it relies on – allowing for wild symbolic conspiracy theories to run rampant in an end-times scenario that otherwise only exists if you take everything literally.
Restoration of God’s People
It’s important to note that what I’m advocating here isn’t replacement theology; even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that God’s original covenant with the Jewish people was never revoked. Justification before God is a question dating back to what is possibly the earliest book of the Old Testament (Job), who asked “how can mere mortals prove their innocence before God?”. Luther describes justification as “before the face of God”; e.g. grace cannot be quantified (especially if it is infinite), which is why establishing forensic justification is a worthy, but also futile effort. Justification isn’t to be taken lightly either; God cannot revoke a covenant. Calvin explains, “For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared.” For that matter, why would anyone believe in a god who would move the goalposts for an entire people? God’s own righteousness is intertwined with faithfulness to his own promises.
Attempts to reconcile this have proven underwhelming. The concept of dual-covenant theology has just as many problems as replacement theology. We see a glimpse of perspective shine through in Jesus’ parable of the wine skins. While the emphasis is often placed on the incompatibility of the old system with the new, it’s often mistaken that this has anything to do with the Christian church. Not enough emphasis is placed on what is actually being rejected as incompatible: the Jewish leadership’s legalism surrounding justification, and their established ethnic boundaries (which both Jesus and Paul took them to task for), were inherently at odds with God’s redemptive plan throughout history for his people. Jesus condemned the Pharisees’ poor stewardship of God’s people, and their system of justification by observing the law, rather than justification by faith in God. Joel B. Green argues, based on his interpretation of Luke 5:39, that from God’s perspective it was the system of false piety that was the incompatible “new wine”; this legalism was the “new garment” tearing away God’s relationship with his people, leaving the old Jewish system in tattered disrepair. This underscores God’s redemptive work as deeply inclusive of the Jewish people, to save them from what was a counterfeit system of works that had never been the intention of the old covenant. This is supported by the New Testament object lesson par excellence in Abraham justified by faith, and not the law (citing Gen 15:6). So the theme, even in the Old Testament blueprint, has always been salvation through grace by faith. What Jesus brought about was a renewal, not replacement, of God’s same redemptive work by deposing the broken Jewish leadership of the time and choosing to personally shepherd his people; e.g. “God with us”, as evident in Ezekiel 34.
1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them. 7 “‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock,9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 10 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them. 11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
So to the contrary, what we see here is an extreme opposite of the anti-Semitic replacement viewpoint and instead, God pursuing the Jewish people to rescue them from the leadership that so miserably failed them. This was the temple he had torn down; he gave it over to the pharisees (and those who ascribed to their misguided legalism), and replaced it with “something better”. Jesus was intended to be the greatest love note for the Jewish people that had ever been. At it’s core, there has really only ever been one covenant and not two; the basis for salvation has always been the same: love God and love your neighbor.
A lot more people would be Christians today if it wasn’t married to the manufactured theology that came out of dispensationalism. A lot more people would also be Christians today if it didn’t require making your political identity your faith. What you’re seeing coming out of the American evangelical church is very alien to historic Christianity. It is more the product of a century of quite terrible theology from a man who capitalized on a publishing opportunity, which gained a cult following due to the pessimism of the early 1900s. Such a radical form of theology this young in its infancy should have never been approached without heavy criticism. It followed us into the movements of the 60’s and beyond, where the church clung to many other forms of cult phenomenon, and the fruits of that are Christians who have conflated their faith with an American ideology. I feel like this is partially responsible for what has bewitched Christians into supporting such anti-Christian ethics as of lately. Conflating these ideas with faith is dangerous, and is just what the QAnon crowd and other conspiracy groups have done in error, but worse, it’s what the evangelical movement in general has adopted in error, and it’s damaged countless Christians. If this is you, consider taking your theology back to its roots; this will prove much more fruitful than reading end times literature on the Internet. Research the writings of the early church fathers like Athanasius, Augustine, Clement, Ignatius, among others. If you really want to blow the mind of literal creationists, read Augustine’s wild interpretation of Genesis. Also, research the different approaches to eschatology; non-dispensationial pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, amillennialism, and preterism to name a few. Read Calvin and Luther. Even post-reformation, you will find the extreme views of modern Christianity were not part of the narrative of the church until just a hundred or so years ago, and there are reasons for that.
I have avoided the obvious omission of explaining too much into what I believe to be an accurate take on eschatology, because there are still many differing and valid opinions to consider, even excluding dispensational ideas. You would be in good company, however, to divorce modern end times ideology from your faith, and you’ll find that can still retain a solid Christian faith in doing so. It is healthy to temper your faith with wisdom. Christianity was never meant to be an orgy of speculation. These are not signs of the times, these are signs of a young theology without wisdom, set in a pessimistic society, scared of science, that embraced it. In the grand scheme of time, many of the ideas the modern church holds have only lived for a sliver of time.
As I have implied repeatedly in my writings, there are consequences for allowing popular culture to drive movements in the church, no matter how harmless they may seem at the time. Sound doctrine is vitally important, and the fruits of the church’s tolerance of bad ideas from church leaders – instead of “testing the spirits” – is evident today. There are consequences when Christian leaders, academics, and the congregations that should hold them accountable fail to be adequately protective of scripture, allowing unsound teachings to be entertained in the church. Given its origins, the fundamentalism many churches still teach today is the most literal definition of white, American Christianity as one can get. Be it far from us to presume that a gospel forged well before our country’s existence and in a culture far different from ours, should be interpreted through 20th century American blinders.
1 A misunderstanding of conditional covenants; also consider the word play in the first three chapters of Genesis, where Ha’adam in the Hebrew personifies Adam as a figurative representation of all mankind.