The "Left Behind" series is a team effort by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
Just the other day, I was musing how great novels are the singular effort
of one author, but all movie versions are corporate undertakings. How
often do we encounter a great work which has several authors in
collaboration?
My wife is a devout Roman Catholic from the Philippines who has
purchased and read every book in the LaHaye/Jenkins series, and were a
new one to be published tomorrow, would instantly place an order for it.
The series is not entirely pleasing to Roman Catholics, since it mentions in
passing that no Roman Catholics were deemed worthy to be taken in the
Rapture, but only Protestants.
The thoughtful and scholarly reader should be aware that there have been
many changes over the centuries in the theology stressed by various
denominations. There was not always an emphasis on Last Days and the
Rapture. Also, during the 18th and 19th centuries, in predominantly
Calvinist America, there was no emphasis on “friendship with Jesus” or
developing a “personal relationship” with Christ. Jesus was considered to
be a figure who played a certain key role in the process, but the emphasis
was upon God the Father and not upon Jesus the Son.
Personally, I have always felt that those who dwell excessively on
meditations of the last times miss out on the fundamental message of
Jesus in the Gospels, namely, that it is how each and every one of us
personally lives each day, from moment to moment, with the choices we
make, which matter and are our "working out" of our salvation with
fear and trembling, as Paul and Kierkegaard put it. Remember, the
Lord's prayer reads "give us this day our daily bread" and also the
verse "sufficient undo the day are the evils thereof." The bulk of
humanity over time span of countless millennia will have already lived
their lives and died when the events in the Book of Revelation finally take
place.
In theory at least, a curse is upon LaHaye and Jenkins for making additions to Revelation
The Book of Revelation begins with a blessing promised for those who
read it aloud, and those who hear, and ends with a curse upon anyone
who dares to add to or subtract from the Revelation. It might
reasonably be argued that the Left Behind series by LaHaye and
Jenkins does add to the account in the Book of Revelation.
It is a curious fact that, in the yearly cycle of services of the Eastern
Orthodox church, there are reading drawn from every book of the Old and
New Testament EXCEPT from the Book of Revelation. The topics of the
Book of Revelation were considered inappropriate for the faithful laity to
dwell upon. There is a large Russian Cathedral in upstate New York,
Jordanville, near the Mohawk valley. The walls and pillars of the cathedral
are covered with iconography. There is one wall which is not visible to
the congregation, but only to the clergy as they stand facing the
congregation, serving the Vespers and Liturgy. The mural on that wall is
scenes from The Book of Revelation concerning the Judgment. The
purpose of such architecture is to remind the clergy the severe
responsibility which has been placed upon them, and the manner in which
they must answer and pay for any shortcomings.
Below are some useful excerpts explaining the origin of the terms and
something of the diversity of beliefs concerning them.
" Rapture " is a transliteration (a 'borrowing' of a word from another
language without 'translating' it into an existing word) from the simple
Latin verb " rapturo ", a derivative of which is the word you read in the
Latin Bible at 1 Thess 4:17, at the place it says in your English bible
"caught up ." It is a way for us English speakers to assign a 'noun' to the
'event' of the " catching up " described in 1 Thess 4:17.
Despite that website author's assertion, the word " rapture " is simply an
English transliteration of the Latin word "rapiemur" as found in the Latin
Vulgate at 1 Thess 4:17, and is the word translated " caught up " as found
in modern English translations. So " rapture " simply refers to the
"catching up" described in 1 Thess 4:17. When any person says they
believe in the " rapture ", they are 'simply' saying they believe the bible
when it says we will be " caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air ..."
All of the Premillennialist beliefs teach that the Tribulation is followed by
1000 years of peace when all live under the authority of Christ.
Afterwards, in a brief, final battle, Satan is permanently conquered.
Fascinating Internal Conflict
Dispensational Premillennialism contains an internal conflict. Its advocates
generally believe "that the moral conditions of the world and the church
are destined get increasingly worse. When they get almost unbearably
bad, the Lord Jesus will return in the clouds to 'rapture' the living saints up
to heaven." However, they tend to be very outspoken and active in their
opposition to many behaviors that they consider to be extremely sinful:
abortion access, equal rights for homosexuals, same-sex marriage,
pre-marital sex, adultery, sex education in schools, access to physician
assisted suicide, the use of embryonic stem cells in healing, etc. By their
opposition to these "hot" religiously controversial topics, they are delaying
Jesus' return to earth, the rapture and the 1000 year millennium.
+++++
I am quite possibly a kindred spirit with you, and I admire Buddhism, but
IF we all launch into a thread of "this religion is better than that religion",
then we shall be in violation of forum rules, and the thread will get locked,
which will be a shame, since it will mean that we do not have the wisdom
and self-control to stay within acceptable boundaries and discuss only the
Left Behind series in question, by citing facts about its subject
matter, namely The Book of Revelation and that abovementioned
Epistle which coins the term. If we can demonstrate some interesting
internal conflict with the fictional series, or in the underlying scripture,
then we have done something truly exciting, provocative and intellectually
stimulating.
To focus on the fear and trembling is understandable but
misguided, when the real point of focus should be the phrase and concept
"to work out", i.e. the significance of works as opposed to salvation
by faith alone which is where Luther of the 16th centure
Reformation may be criticized, and why the Epistle of James, with its
emphasis on the importance of works is such a thorn in Luther's
side.
By the way, an argument might easily be made that there is indeed much
"fear and trembling" in both Mahayana and Theravadin Buddhist theology,
but such a discussion would be beyond the scope of this thread, and in
violation of forum guidelines.
The other very neat point, which I found with a google search, is the
notion of an internal conflict in the movement which relishes this left
behind series, namely, that they fight against things which they find
objectionable, and yet it is the very process of moral decay which will
hasten the coming of the millennial reign of God on earth which, one
would assume, they so ardently desire.
+++++++++
One extremely sticky theological wicket which this series presents is the
notion that, at a certain point in time, after the righteous or "saved" have
been swept away into the clouds, there remain upon earth vast numbers
of human beings who continue to live, but have now no possibility of
repentance or salvation. Now there are those who will object that there
will still be a final judgment and at the final judgment those who remain
for the tribulation will have a hope of salvation and forgiveness. But we
are presented with a notion that those who are "taken" and spared the
tribulation are already guaranteed their salvation. In fact, it is very
common for Protestants of certain denominations to approach people in
an evangelical spirit and ask "are you SAVED?".
I attended a 4 year (one night a week) Bible study with my wife, covering
the Old and New Testaments, conducted by a Marist brother who served
as guidance counselor and history teacher in a Catholic high school. I
once asked Brother Gerry, "When someone asks you if you are saved,
how do you respond?" He smiled and said, "I answer that I am
redeemed." We then launched into a complex discussion of the
difference between salvation and redemption, employing a simple analogy
as an illustration. Imagine a prison in which 10 people are sitting in their
cells because they cannot pay the fine. Someone comes and pays the
fines for all ten people. The jailor opens the cell doors. Only two depart
to enjoy their new freedom, while eight remain in their confinement. Now,
all ten were redeemed, but only two made the freewill choice to avail
themselves of that redemption and make the journey to true freedom and
salvation.
Those Christian denominations who stress predestination and election will
have no problem with the idea that those who are left behind are
condemned and beyond hope, since, for them, God foreknew and
foreordained from before the foundation of the world each and every soul
which would ever be born, some created for salvation, irresistible,
ineluctable salvation, will-he nil-he, while others were created for eternal
damnation. Such denominations embrace such a theology because for
them the absolute sovereignty of God is so essential that were human
freewill choice and co-operation to play a part in the process of salvation,
then God's absolute sovereignty would be diminished. These same
notions are present in Islamic belief. The Qu'ran expressly states that
those who reject Allah shall be blinded and deafened by Allah and
deceived and misled into even further error, in order to increase their
punishment in the afterlife.
Kierkegaard was such a genius to realize that it was Abraham's freewill
choice which elected to believe and accept as genuine the voice of God,
commanding that he sacrifice Isaac, rather than dismiss it as a demonic
temptation or a product of his own psychotic imagination.
There is no religion in the world which is free from rhetoric, and the sole
purpose of rhetoric is to persuade those who have freewill choice make a
certain choice.
In recent years, a Southern Baptist convention condemned certain
Calvinist notions of election and predestination which had crept in, since
Baptists emphasize proselytizing, and why would someone choose to join
if they believed that everything is pre-ordained and our choices do not
matter.
++++++++++
There are two verses in the New Testament which make for an interesting
analysis of the Left Behind series. The most interesting is
Revelation chapter 10, verse 6:
And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever who created heaven, and
the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are,
and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be
time no longer.
- from King James translation
The King James translation renders accurately the Greek "kai xronos
ouketi estai" as that there should be time no longer. Other modern
translations incorrectly translate this as there should be no more
delay.
The correct translation of the Greek implies that time itself ceases. This
fits right in with Chapter 6, verse 14, which states: "And the heaven
departed as a scroll when it is rolled together." If we combine these two
interesting verses, we have the familiar Stephen Hawking notion of
time-space continuum as something which can do some strange things
inside of a black hole singularity. There is only one other Biblical passage
which speaks of the heavens being rolled up like a scroll, and that is in
the Book of Isaiah.
The other interesting passage is in the second Epistle of Peter, Ch. 3,
verse 16: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in
which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction."
What Peter is saying here contradicts another verse which states that all
scripture is suitable for discussion and beneficial to all. Peter's verse also
contradicts the notion of Luther that all scripture is a matter of private
personal interpretation.
My Roman Catholic wife has a childhood friend, Meg, who became
Protestant.
Meg often drops hints about the advantages of conversion, and makes
criticisms of the Pope. I pointed out to my wife that the only difference
between the Catholics and the Protestants is that the Catholics have only
one Pope, while the Protestants have countless popes, in the sense that,
in large cities, one often sees two or three store-front churches on a
single block, and each of those has been set up by someone who is
convinced that they know the truth, and desires to pontificate, and, as
Peter puts it, "are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
scriptures, unto their own destruction." Tim LaHaye and his partner,
Jerry Jenkins, eagerly join the ranks of these store-front popes.
Kurt Vonnegut was so insightful to point out that Americans are always
clamoring to erect stone tablets with Moses Ten Commandments in public
buildings, but no one ever thinks to erect a plaque with Jesus beatitudes
from the Sermon on the Mount. Every wonder why that should be.
The answer will help you to understand the popularity of the Left
Behind series in the Bible Belt.
++++++++++++
[QUOTE=abecedarian]Tim Lahaye does not claim to be a theologian. He is
a pastor who has done some Biblical research and written books based
on his understanding of what he has learned. That's what writers
do.[/QUOTE]
With all due respect:
Every pastor is, or should be, a theologian, since they attempt to interpret
the meaning of Scripture to others. Not every theologian is a pastor,
since the term pastor implies guiding or nurturing a flock or congregation.
Some theologians restrict their activity to writing.
Kazantzakis steped into the theologian arena when he wrote "The Last
Temptation of Christ."
I am certain that LaHaye was careful to consult with Baptist theologians to
assure that his fictional series, Left Behind was Nihil Obstat
and Imprimatur with his target Bible Belt audience.
There is one hymn in the Greek Orthodox Church which states "He has
made theologians of simple fishermen (meaning, of course, the
Apostles)." It is not some degree or certification as Theologian which
enables or entitles a person to write about theological matters, but rather
it is the body of our own writings on spiritual or scriptural matters,
whether expository and didactic or fictional, which brands a person as a
theologian in the minds of our audience. We become theologians by
virtue of our reading, writing and speaking about theological subjects for a
period of years.
One hallmark of a theologian is to quote many other theologians from
antiquity, and to quote scriptural verses in order to make certain points or
arguments.
Former President Jimmy Carter is a talented theologian who has written
several popular books, such as Living Faith. One reviewer states:
(quote)
"The book keeps coming back to its unifying purpose well stated in its
title, Living Faith. Stemming from the early experience of accepting
Christ, Jimmy Carter explains succinctly how this relationship came about.
One of the most helpful parts o the book is his painful sharing of the
reality of doubt as he matured and confronted the challenges of a highly
technical and mechanistic age. An intensive questioning correlated with
serious study about the issues produced deep insight about these realities.
Quotations abound from Reinhold Niebuhr (his favorite theologian),
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, Hans Kung,
Soren Kierkegaard. Any student of theology realizes that one does
not move with ease through these ponderous and profound writers. "
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: Continuation
++++++++++++++++++
(I should point out that, personally, my beliefs are Buddhist and Hindu, so
no one will feel that I have a vested interest or some ideological ax to
grind. I was raised with no religion, but became Greek Orthodox
Christian in my early twenties, and remained that for 20 years before
changing my views.)
This morning, I read this entire thread aloud to my wife, who has read
every volume of the “Left Behind” and we discussed it. I was incorrect
yesterday in stating that those who are left behind have no hope for
salvation. Apparently, they are still free to accept Christ and be saved,
but they must suffer all the trials and tribulations and temptations of the
Great Tribulation of the last days. I am correct in pointing out that those
who are “taken up” in the rapture are presumed to be “saved”, and there
is a real problem scripturally with such a teaching as it conflicts with other
parts of the Bible. Many Protestant denominations stress the notion that,
if you do certain things, then your salvation is guaranteed to you in this
lifetime. The big problem with guaranteed salvation is that it is in conflict
with Jesus words in the Gospels. Jesus describes a scene from the final
Judgment where some approach and say “Lord, Lord, we did miracles in
your name…” and he replies to them, “Go away, I never knew you.”
Others approach and he says to them, “I was hungry and you fed me. I
was naked and you clothed me, etc.” This other group is quite perplexed
and exclaims “when did we do all these things?” Jesus answers, “When
you did these things to the lest of your brethren (the poorest of the poor
in Mother Theresa’s terms) then you did them to me. It is quite obvious
from Jesus’ words that those who presumed themselves saved were sadly
mistaken, while those who were truly saved were not even conscious of
what it was they had done to deserve salvation.
I had previously quoted from this link and one phrase stands out for me
with unique significance:
(quote)
LaHaye has devoted much of his career—and 13 of his nonfiction
works—to puzzling out what the Bible's prophecies mean. He has
explained it all in dense tomes for fellow theologians as well as in the
accessible 140-page Charting the End Times: A Visual Guide to
Understanding Bible Prophecy (written with Thomas Ice, 2001). "The
future is settled, and not open to change," LaHaye says. There is
comfort in that message.
(end of quote)
What catches my attention is the word COMFORT.
When we are assured of things like the eternal security of our salvation by
people like Charles Stanley, then we are comforted that we have nothing
to worry about. When we are assured that "The future is settled, and not
open to change" we are comforted. But with such comfort comes a
dangerous complacency.
Yet a crucial verse from the Old Testament: “Wisdom begins in fear of
the Lord”.
Gandhi, in his autobiography, describes how, as a college student in Great
Britain, he voluntarily made a careful study of Christianity together with a
certain pastor there. Gandhi said he rejected Christianity because he
noticed that Christians would sin in the most casual fashion. When Gandhi
questioned them, they explained that they were forgiven and saved and
continually cleansed by their baptism and the substitutional atonement of
Christ on the cross. Gandhi stated that he did not desire simply to escape
the consequences of sin, but, if possible, to extinguish sin itself, at its
very source.
A depressed youth came to his pastor, who subscribed to Charles
Stanley’s doctrine of the eternal security of salvation, which states that,
once you accept Christ as your personal savior, then there is nothing you
can do to lose your salvation. The depressed youth asked the pastor if he
would go to hell for committing suicide. The pastor comforted him by
reminding him of Eternal Security, that nothing he could do would affect
his guaranteed salvation. So, being thus comforted and reassured, the
youth went and committed suicide.
Consider the following verses which fly in the face of doctrines of eternal
security of salvation and in the comfort which Tim LaHaye
endeavors to bestow:
Phil. 2: 12 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in
my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling.”
Why would Paul tell the people of Corinth to work out their salvation if it
were already guaranteed and eternally secure?
I Corinthians 9:27 “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection
[through fastings and vigils], lest that by any means when I have
preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”
Even Paul states that his own salvation is not a sure thing, but he must
work at it.
II Corin. 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ;
that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that
he had done, whether it be good or bad.”
Sounds like works count to me here, and one does not learn the verdict
until the judgment. If one could know they are saved before the
judgment, then what is the purpose of a judgment?
Romans ch 5-6: “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest
up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God: Who will render to every man according to
his deeds (works).”
"We are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our
confidence stedfast unto the end" (Hebrews 3:14).
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and
have not works? can faith save him?" (James 2:14).
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
"And ye shall be hated of all men for My Name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (Mark 13:13).
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under Heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister" (Colossians 1:12-14, 23).
In closing this post, I would like to quote from the sixth century theologian, Maximus the Confessor, in the Philokalia:
"You believe there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe and tremble." James 2:19
The demons believe but they do not love God and His Creation. St. Maximus the Confessor c. A.D. 580-662 quotes Jeremiah :" " Do not say you are the Temple of the Lord,"(Jer.7:4); nor should you say that faith alone in Our Lord Jesus Christ can save you, for this is impossible unless you acquire love for Him through your works."(The Philokalia Vol. II p.5)
And John Climacus, also of the Philokalia, states that “At the Judgment you shall recognize the righteous, for their heads shall be hung low, and they shall say, “We have done nothing worthy.”
Another word to describe this attitude is humility which seems to be absent from the vocabularies of people like Tim LaHaye.
I listed on the radio to Dr. James Dobson reviewing Mel Gibson’s movie. Dr. Dobson exclaimed (paraphrasing), “I did not think it was possible for me to love Jesus any more than I do, but seeing this movie about the Crucifixion made me love Jesus even more.” For the ancient orthodox Christians of the early centuries, these words of Dr. Dobson would be considered quite proud. He believes himself to be perfect in his love for Jesus, flawless. The ancient Greeks called such an attitude, “planemenos” which comes from the same word as planet, meaning “wanderer”. A planamenos person is someone who has strayed away from the genuine teachings of the Gospels and is sick with the disease of pride. The Russians translate the Greek term, planamenos, into Slavonic as “prelest”.
++++++++++++
I feel that I am perfectly "on topic" to raise a question about whether those "taken up" in the rapture are already saved, or must face a Judgment in which they shall possibly be condemned.
I am perfectly justfied in evaluating Tim LaHaye and his fiction in the light of the history of Christian doctrine, a two thousand year history which includes the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics as well as the Protestant reformation.
I sympathize with the fact that some ideas may grate against the beliefs of others, just as a writer's style or grammar or vocabulary may grate against one person's tastes, but be pleasing to another person. That grating does not render something "illicit".
LaHaye's series, and LaHaye as a pastor, is situated in a the larger context of what is going on in America, with all the various radio and TV evangelists. His works are criticized by other popular media figures such as Hank Hannegraff, the "Bible Answer Man". Therefore I feel that it is appropriate to discuss those other personalities and teachings, and how they may agree or clash with LaHaye.
And finally, I believe that I can bring something to the discussion by contrasting these theologians with the very different piety and mood of the first 1000 years of Christianity, prior to the schism of 1054, the mood and understanding of the first 7 Ecumenical counsels.
I realize that this thread will ultimately be locked, because people do not feel comfortable considering all these things.
Silence and censorship is one viable solution to things that displease us, but I do not think it is the best solution.
If I mention The Book of Revelation, am I off topic? If I bring up contemporary media evangelists who agree with or disagree with LaHaye, am I off-topic. If I compare LaHaye's position with the 2000 year history and development of doctrine, as outlined by scholars such as Jaroslav Pelikan's "History of Christian Doctrine", am I going off-topic? I think not.
I feel that I am perfectly "on topic" to raise a question about whether those "taken up" in the rapture are already saved, or must face a Judgment in which they shall possibly be condemned, since this is a question raised by LaHaye in his books.
I am perfectly justfied in evaluating Tim LaHaye and his fiction in the light of the history of Christian doctrine, a two thousand year history which includes the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics as well as the Protestant reformation.
I sympathize with the fact that some ideas may grate against the beliefs of others, just as a writer's style or grammar or vocabulary may grate against one person's tastes, but be pleasing to another person. That grating does not render something "illicit".
LaHaye's series, and LaHaye as a pastor, is situated in a the larger context of what is going on in America, with all the various radio and TV evangelists. His works are criticized by other popular media figures such as Hank Hannegraff, the "Bible Answer Man". Therefore I feel that it is appropriate to discuss those other personalities and teachings, and how they may agree or clash with LaHaye.
And finally, I believe that I can bring something to the discussion by contrasting these theologians with the very different piety and mood of the first 1000 years of Christianity, prior to the schism of 1054, the mood and understanding of the first 7 Ecumenical counsels.
I realize that this thread will ultimately be locked, because people do not feel comfortable considering all these things.
Silence and censorship is one viable solution to things that displease us, but I do not think it is the best solution.
If I mention The Book of Revelation, am I off topic? If I bring up contemporary media evangelists who agree with or disagree with LaHaye, am I off-topic. If I compare LaHaye's position with the 2000 year history and development of doctrine, as outlined by scholars such as Jaroslav Pelikan's "History of Christian Doctrine", am I going off-topic? I think not.
And, if you look at the initial post, by the person who started this thread, they are asking "what do you think." And I am only honestly sharing my thoughts about Tim LaHaye and his series.
We have to be mature enough to accept the fact that the thoughts and opinions of some will displease us.
I do agree with you that LaHaye would turn about and say that works are important. I see these answers by such people as rhetorical tricks and sophistry. In one breath, they will say that someone is guaranteed their salvation because they have accepted Christ as their personal savior. But in the next breath, should you point to some individual who did accept Christ but whose live does not measure up to what a Christian should be, then you will hear, "well, they were not really saved to begin with." At least that is my experience when arguing with such people.
I was shocked the day that I learned that the Southern Baptists split from the Northern Baptists, because the Northern Baptists felt that it was wrong for a pastor to own slaves, but the Souther Baptists disagreed.
The point has been made here, by some, with good reason, that LaHaye's books are not the best of prose, that the characters are stereotyped, and that the reader is lured onward simply out of curiosity to see "what will happen next."
I have made the point that there is a certain sophistry in the arguments of people like LaHaye. His books imply that no Roman Catholic will be taken up in the rapture. He does not state this outright. If you listen to the 24/7 Protestant AM radio stations, as I did for several years, you hear such a continual innuendo. One former Catholic will state, "Oh I used to think that I had to have a priest in order to pray. I did not realize that I could pray alone in my room." Of course, Jesus advises that people go in secret in their "closet" to pray.
I used to work with a brilliant woman who was phi beta kappa, with a dual major in theology and mathematics. She was married to the pastor of a nearby church.
I once asked her, out of curiosity:
"Suppose a Roman Catholic began to attend your services, and after a few months, requested to join your church. What would you do? Would you accept their Roman Catholic baptism, or would you re-baptize them."
She explained that since Catholics are not Christians, they would need to be baptized. But, she said, first, they must present several witnesses from the community, to testify that they are already living a moral life.
This attitude, of demanding the fruits of works as a proof of worthiness to be admitted to a church, is rather bizarre, but is commonly encountered. And yet, we see Jesus accepting dreadful sinners, harlots, etc., immediately upon their demonstration of repentance.
I think that one must examine the church and teachings of people like LaHaye to get a better understanding of the sophistry, if indeed there is sophistry and double talk.
We seem to have already agreed that these books are not the best of literature, and boring to many.
But they are not meant to be literature for entertainment so much as a tool to lure people into doctrinal discussions and to proselytize. I think it is appropriate to investigate the series from this theological perspective.
Folks who love these books are fascinated by questions such as, "when a person is taken, are they taken with their clothing, or does one see a pile of shoes and clothes left on the floor."
It is perhaps more spiritually beneficial for people to ponder their daily actions in business, and in their relations with family and neighbors, rather than to ponder sartorial residues.
+++++++
One critic of Annie Proulx, "The Old Ace in the Hole" (I think), complained that what she wrote was journalism and doctrine thinly disguised as literature. It is my understanding that "Silas Marner" is the product of the author's study of various humanist philosophers (notably, her 1854 translation of Ludwig Feuerbach's "Essence of Christianity") and an attempt to explore, through plot and dialogue. When I first read Silas Marner, in eighth grade, I hardly suspected that there was any doctrine there.
Tolstoy has some overt essays embedded in his novels, which one may uncover by taking the text download, and doing a string search on "freewill".
Come to think of it, Steinbeck’s “East of Eden” is loaded with all sorts of Pelagian doctrine about free will choice and “timshol” or “timshel” as the human capacity to choose to resist evil, all placed in dialogue of the Chinese cook.
I have all of LaHaye's series in front of me, and I shall try to skim through and see if I find some overt, explicit doctrine, or whether it is all veiled as plot and dialogue.
As a curious aside, I was reading "Sons and Lovers" and found a marvelous dialogue in which a young man and woman discusses the verse about from the Gospels which states that "two sparrows are sold for a farthing, yet not one sparrow falls unnoticed." The young woman states that she used to believe that quite literally, but now, she is of the opinion that the entire race of sparrows is significant, but not the single individual. Certainly, such dialogue smacks of doctrinal interpretation.
Yet, one might say the same thing in the Iliad, where Glaukos and Diomedes pause upon the battlefield to exchange gifts and comment that the race of humans is like the leaves which fall with each season and are no more, but only the memorial remains of the noble and famous in the memories of their descendants.
Adn we shall not even mention 1984 and Animal Farm.
+++
I once read through half of Plato's Dialogues, and tried to figure out what it was that Plato believed, and what it was that Socrates believed, and what Plato wanted the reader to thing. Such questions are more easily answered regarding authors who are still alive.
When we learn that Steinbeck had an elaborate wooden box carved, with "Timshel" in Hebrew letters on the lid, and enclosed a copy of East of Eden, as a give to his publisher, then we have greater insight into what Steinbeck thought about "timshel".
I am quickly browsing through "Left Behind" the first volume, and something on page 5 catches my attention as an attempt at dogma or doctrine.
quote:
He believed in rules, systems, laws, patterns, things you could see and feel and hear and touch. If god was part of all that, OK. A higher power, a loving being, a force behind the laws of nature, fine. Let's sing about it, pray about it, feel good about our ability to be kind to others, and go about our business. Rayford's greatest fear was that this religious fixation would not fade like Irene's Amway days, her Tupperware phase, and her aerobics spell. he could see just her ringing doorbells and asking if she could read people a verse or two. Surely she knew better than to dream of his tagging along.
(end of quote)
I must do some errands, but this is my first offering of something in LaHaye that approaches didactic doctrine.
Of course, one can hardly expect the authors to pause, mid sentence, and say, "Hello there, we are the authors and we wish to pause for a moment and address you, the reader, directly, to state, emphatically that the one true religion has the following characteristics, and that various Biblical passages may be interpreted only in certain ways."
Of course, LaHaye has many non fictional works and published interviews, so one may learn from a study of those, and perhaps his sermons, what he personally believes, and then attempt to identify in the fiction those passages which are really LaHaye speaking his personal convictions.
++++++++++
Here are two links with details about the movie version of "Left Behind", by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Released on video in October 2000, LEFT BEHIND hit theater screens February 2, 2001.
The second link (above) is very long and very detailed in its point by point scriptural analysis of the movie, summarizing accuracies and Biblical inaccuracies.
The passage (in bold, below) mentions something that really bothers me, because it seems to be a rhetorical device to convince people to pay lip-service to Christian doctrine, ignoring the manner of their life. In exchange for that lip-service they are promised that God will overlook every deplorable thing they have ever done or shall do in the future.
But it is also saying that, if someone does not confess Christ, then no matter how virtuous and splendid their life has been, they cannot be saved, since Christ alone is the way to salvation.
I cannot help but think of that passage in Isaiah which says: "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my (God's) ways from your (human) ways and my mind from your mind." Isaiah is receiving a revelation that God is unknowable/incomprehensible. Yet the Book of Revelation and LaHaye seem to have God down to a story-board level of detail, ready to start casting and filming on location.
I am also thinking of Paul's statement that of the three essentials, faith, hope and love, it is love which is the highest and most important. Yet the following excerpt in bold stresses not love but faith (doctrinal belief), as the key to salvation. Someone may have live a life filled with love, selfless sacrifice and devotion to serving others, and yet this excerpt says they shall not be saved, because their dogmatic faith lacks an accurate profession of Christ as their savior.
I am reminded of Hans Kung’s monumental work “On Being Christian”. In his third chapter he reminds us that, a few years before Christopher Columbus set sail, there was a Roman Catholic Council in Florence which decreed that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. In the 1960’s, at the Vatican II Council, a very brief three page encyclical was published, entitle Nostra Aetatis, which totally reversed the position of the Council of Florence, decreeing that God’s guiding grace and salvation is present in non-Christian faiths such as Hinduism.
The LaHaye book/movie correctly says that Jesus Christ alone is the way to salvation, although even this is watered down as maybe just meaning "God" is enough. When Ray confronts Buck after they view the tape, he says "If you don't put your faith in God you will be deceived". Later, when Buck finally does pray, he merely asks God to forgive him and direct him, but he never mentions Christ and His cleansing blood or and His redemptive work on the cross. The gospel message and its true meaning is very loosely portrayed.
Other excerpts from above link:
It is troubling that Hollywood often produces films that are blatantly anti-Christian. Even more troubling is when Christians with good intentions produce a film that tries to tell the truth, but is dangerously off in its theology. LEFT BEHIND is the latest film that tackles eschatology (the study of end times), and claims to be biblical. Yet the film misinterprets and misapplies significant portions of prophetic Scripture. Can this kind of misleading teaching in a film potentially domore harm than a blatantly anti-Christian message?
Released on video in October 2000, LEFT BEHIND hit theater screens February 2, 2001. Based on the best selling book by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, LEFT BEHIND was produced by Peter and Paul LaLonde, the same duo that produced the APOCOLYPSE, REVELATION, and TRIBULATION trilogy with Jack Van Impe and John Hagee Ministries.
For LEFT BEHIND, the LaLonde brothers re-teamed with Cloud Ten Pictures, who released TRIBULATION. But even with a budget of $14.7 million, the most money ever put into a Christian film, LEFT BEHIND falls short of being a first-class movie. Although the writing is an excellent adaptation of the novel, and is close to the best we've seen for a Christian film, there remain some weak moments that minimize the illusion of reality.
LEFT BEHIND is clearly a story told from the pretribulational perspective. In the film, the Rapture occurs before the signing of Antichrist's seven year covenant with Israel (Daniel 9:26), before the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22), and before the sign in the sun, moon, and stars (Matthew 24:29 and Joel 2:30). But a straight forward, face value reading of Matthew 24 reveals that the Rapture will not occur until after all of these things, and that the Rapture will be a cutting short of the persecution of the saints and the Jews. The timing of the Rapture as depicted in LEFT BEHIND is the key flaw to its entire eschatological message. Placing the Rapture before the seven-year period (the Seventieth Week of Daniel), sets up a foundation that knocks everything else on the timeline out of place and out of order.
ARE ALL THE END TIME EVENTS DEPICTED IN THE FILM WRONG?
The filmmakers do get some biblical facts straight, to a point. They correctly say that, according to Daniel 7, Antichrist will control ten kingdoms, which will control the world. They correctly say, according to 2 Thessalonians 2:4, that Antichrist will seat himself in the rebuilt temple, claiming to be God. They correctly state that Antichrist will, according to Daniel 9:27, confirm a covenant with the many for seven years.
(end of excerpts)
+++++
Here are a few more useful links on the movie version of LaHaye's book.
The book LEFT BEHIND is a fictional book based on prophecy, but it does teach doctrine. One of the very questionable doctrines it teaches is that at the time of the rapture pregnant women will suddenly become un-pregnant (that is, the unborn babies will be taken in the rapture and will leave the unsaved mother who be left behind, many pounds lighter!). A rapture for embryos! The following is found on pages 46-47 of the book LEFT BEHIND:
Most shocking to Rayford was a woman in labor, about to go into the delivery room, who was suddenly barren. Doctors delivered the placenta. Her husband had caught the disappearance of the fetus on tape. As he videotaped her great belly and sweaty face, he asked questions. How did she feel? .....
Infants are not saved and they are not in Christ; nor are they part of the church. It would be wrong to point to a living infant and say, "That baby is saved and has eternal life and his sins are forgiven!" On the contrary, every baby is born in sin and every infant has a wicked sin nature (Rom. 5:12, Psalm 51:5; Job 14:4; Psalm 58:3). Babies are not saved and they do not possess eternal life. If this were true, then does this mean that when they get older they become UN-saved and forfeit eternal life? This is Biblically absurd. It would also be absurd to say that all the unsaved children around the world growing up in Hindu and Muslim and Buddhist homes are part of the church that is in Christ.
(end of excerpt)
If we look at Psalm 51 (or 50 in the Septuagint), which is King David's repentance for the murder of Uriah and lust for Bathsheba, we read "For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me."
We read in Jeremiah, Chapter 1, verse 5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you ; Before you were born I sanctified you;"
Why would it be necessary for God to sanctify Jeremiah as a fetus, if newborn babies are sinless and saved? And at what point does a baby become sinful, and in need of Christ for salvation?
+++
As I read this thread, it amuses me to realize that the literary criticism and theory which I enjoy reading is a non-fiction which takes fiction as its subject: Umberto Eco's "On Literature" and Kundera's "Art of the Novel" and even, in its own way, Hemingway's "Moveable Feast". Biographies and autobiographies of the lives of novelists and poets is another example of non-fiction which gives us more insight into the world of fiction.
For me, the study of comparative religions is exciting. I imagine it to be similar to the chess enthusiast who studies hundreds of classic games.
Someone, in an IRC chat on philosophy, once asked where one might see compassion in the works of Camus. I expanded the question's scope to seek compassion in the history of philosophy. My search paused when I considered Plato's cave analogy in the Republic. That one person who frees himself from the chains of illusion, and escapes the cave into the light of day, feels compassion for those who remain in bondage, and returns to somehow effect their release. How similar this is to a bodhisattva, who intentionally retains some flaws so as not to escape the cycle of rebirth and enter Nibbana, but to be reborn once again into the world to aid all suffering sentient beings.
Consider the drama of a paragraph from one of Jefferson's letters to a friend, where he says "Just as no two people have the same face, likewise, no two people have exactly the same understanding of their religion." Hence, one billion Roman Catholics, means one billion shades of Catholicism, like some vast spiritual kaleidoscope.
Or, consider the drama for me, to find a passage in The Book of Revelation, which hints of the very pantheism which Christianity condemned, in Chapter 7, verses 15-17: "Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them ...."
The essential quality of such personal, subjective interpretation and deconstruction or analysis is that it becomes mine, my discovery and insight, and is no longer a passive experience but an active one, where I am the doer and not simply the observer.
But then, such experiences require much labor and preparation. Whenever we actively experience fiction, as opposed to being a spectator passively beholding, then the product of our experience, our insight, becomes non-fiction.
This reminds me of the opening pages of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", describing the irony of human freedom, that we are free to do anything except relinquish our freedom, since the relinquishing of freedom requires a ceaseless exercise of freedom.
So, as the particular kind of reader that I am, I convert fiction into fact, and I convert fact into drama. A reader may be a kind of machine in these respects.
++++++
Your two posts at this forum demonstrate a lot of talent.
I hope you can organize your life and finances in such a way that you can write a great deal.
Here is my advice to you, off the top of my head, not that I ever took it myself for very long when I was younger.
Try to do all your writing on a computer, also, carry a notebook everywhere and occasionally dictate on a recorder and transcribe notes to a computer. Be sure to create regular backups, including off-site, so you won't loose all your work.
Be like Annie Proulx, and gather material daily. Carry a notebook. Jot down interesting phrases you hear. Pretend you are a camera and take prose snapshots of scenes and people.
The only way you will ever develop your talent is to write voluminously, and read voraciously.
Perhaps you could get a website or blog, and post your more polished pieces there.
Do not be intimidated by lack of length or plot or structure. Produce many fragments, vignettes, short stories, ideas for stories. In time, you will get some inspiration for a longer more cohesive work.
Do not write for others. Write for yourself. Write because you must write. Write because it is an essential expression of your innermost self.
Do not try to copy what is popular. Instead, be yourself and follow your own interests and imagination. Be natural. Don’t try too hard. Daily writing of anything will yield gradual results over a period of months and years.
F. Scott Fitzgerald died thinking that he had essentially failed. It was only some years after his death that he was “re-discovered.” When “The Great Gatsby” went to press, he said how he realized only too late what he should have been doing in terms of hard work, rather than wasting his time. Fitzgerald did a major re-write in the galley stage, when one should be making only minor corrections.
Actualizing one great goal means denying ourselves many things and sacrificing.
I saw a Latin saying on a sundial once. It was Time saying, “You waste me, and I’ll waste you.”
++++++
[QUOTE=Idun]If I may put a word in your Alchemist discussion - don't you think that Coehlo doesn't know himself what he wants to say? Think of the main plot:
Spoiler:
the hero gets into a long journey to look for a hidden treasure, travels for a whole book only to find out that the treasure was all the time just where he lived...
So what is the conclusion? Should we be able to develop ourselves in given circumstances and notice the real treasures that can be acquired just where we live, or, on the contrary, should we leave our homeland to be able to understand ourselves and find happiness?
Unclear for me.[/QUOTE]
I have just now read your spoiler, and I realize that the plot resembles both the verse from Augustine's Confessions, which Yeats chose as a preface to his collected works, and also to the Sufi tale about the Parliament of Birds.
Paraphrasing Augustine from memory, "Oh, thou beauty, most ancient, yet most fresh, far and wide did I search for thee, in vain, and all along, thou wast within me."
In the Sufi tale, all the birds convene to discuss a great pilgrimage or crusade or quest in search of the quintessential lord of birds, the Simurgh. There is a Persian pun at work in this story, so I am told, since the name Simurgh can also mean "40 birds". The birds make a journey quite like Chaucer's tales, a journey of self discovery. At the end of the journey they discover that they themselves are the Simurgh.
I am reminded of Salman Rushdie's scene, in the "Satanic Verses", how Aiyesha, beclouded in butterflies, leads her followers to the ocean's edge. The butterflies swarm into a cloud about the sea surface, to form a human effigy, and then plunge into the ocean. Many followers wade into the ocean, to their death.
I suppose the New Age message for us, from people like Hans Kung, is that we ourselves are to be Christ, if Christ is to have any meaning at all. But then, Gandhi died with the name of his avatar, Ram, upon his lips, having lived a life more Christ-like than most, such that Einstein was moved to write "Future generations shall scarcely believe that such a man as Gandhi walked the earth in the flesh."
++++
I admire the saying "No generalization is worth a damn, including this one."
No one likes being stereotyped or pidgeon-holed I suppose. Polish people don't really enjoy all those Polish jokes about lightbulbs.
I made up a joke once, a joke which is told in Poland, about Americans:
Question: "How many Americans does it take to screw in a lighbulb?"
Answer: "One!"
(and the audience in Warsaw roars with laughter).
+++++++
Peder, I have been thinking about your several posts.
Are you saying that I have denounced Americans or Christianity? I may possibly have posted something which strikes you in that fashion, so please repost the hightlights of what I said that seems like a denouncing.
For years I have found great fault with Protestant Doctrine. I do not see Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy as perfect, but I do see many aspects of those confessions which are preferable.
A wise theologian once pointed out that the ground work for the Protestant Reformation by Luther in the 16th century was layed down by Augustine in the 5th century, with his doctrines regarding Grace.
Of course you do realize that the doctrines of LaHaye and those like him denounce all of human nature as hopelessly sinful, and condemned to eternal torment unless they confess Christ in a certain fashion. And as my wife pointed out to me, there is the insinuation in the books that no Roman Catholic is taken up in the Rapture, but only Protestants.
But please do highlight for me those passages from my posts which seem offensive, either by posting here, or privately in PM.
I must say that I find some members here so terrified of being politically correct that they seem paralyzed and hesitant to take a stand or risk crawling out upon a limb to make an original point. I too feel like I am walking on eggshells when I attempt to post.
Stop and think of the manner in which Protestant Christianity denounces Hindus as idolators, and Roman Catholics as idolatrous in their use of statues and images. I am not trying to argue tit for tat, or that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am simply trying to point out that this sectarian mood of denunciation and vilification is certainly germane to such writings as these. Many nations are characterized as Satanic in a sense, and we are told that not simply Protestants, but also God, despises them.
++++++++++++++
I rather suspected that you might be generically referring to all posts in the thread, but I was not certain. I am relieved to learn I have been prudent in my language.
I want to have the freedom, in life (not just in this forum), to discuss and debate the philosophical, theological and political values of others, without falling into the trap of ad hominem or persecution.
For example, I enormously admire Charles Stanley, but I cannot agree with his doctrine of the "Eternal Security of Salvation". I do not see disagreement as a form of denunciation. I am certain that neither do you, Peder.
I cannot say that I enormously admire what I have learned about the life and person of Martin Luther of the German Reformation.
I see his greatest error in his failure to realize something which the Eastern Orthodox Church stresses at every monastic tonsure of vows, when they read "Make your vows and pay them to the Lord. Better never to vow at all than to vow and not pay." These two verses are from the writings of Solomon in the Old Testament. Luther conveniently forgets that he took life time vows in an Augustine order. No matter how correct Luther was in recognizing the abuses of the Papacy with regard to indulgences, there is no valid theological argument to release him from his personal vows which he voluntarily made. But Luther feels obliged to argue, theologically, that the entire notion of vows of celibacy is in error and offensive to God, ignoring the fact that one of the greatest figures in the Old Testament was the Prophet Elijah (Elias), a celibate ascetic, and in Christ's own words, there is none greater born of woman than John the Baptist, who was also a celibate ascetic.
Jesus told his disciples, paraphrasing from memory, "Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and some make eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. This is a difficult saying, but let those to whom it has been granted the strength of such a struggle take it up."
If you question a Protestant, they will say this simply means that one may remain a bachelor, if one chooses. Nowhere in the Protestant denominations, (except for a few Anglicans and Episcopalians) do we see a formal provision made for the celibate life which Jesus describes.
Obviously, these various inconsistencies influence my view of Protestant theology, and my understanding of Protestant theology influences my thoughts regarding an author such as LaHaye and his "Left Behind" series.
++++
Very few people understand the precise meaning of the term "assault and battery."
If I run up to a stranger in the street, and start yelling and screaming to the top of my lungs, shaking my fist, and saying "I disapprove of you and if you do not mend your ways you shall be very sorry (forgive my strong language here)" then I have assaulted that person, and if a policeman is watching, he or she might arrest me on charges of assault. If, after shouting, I punch this pedestrian in the nose, then a charge of battery shall be added to the charge of assault.
Whenever an evangelical, a stranger, approaches me in the street, and tells me that I shall suffer eternally if I do not do certain things, then that is likewise, technically, an assault and a threat.
Threats do not necessary need to be made in person. Threats can come in the form of letters, or e-mail, or through the media of television and cinema.
It is not unreasonable to view LaHaye's books as a threat to people, of what they shall suffer if they do not conform to certain things.
Suppose a clever writer composed a novel about the overthrow of the U.S. Government, and revealed as part of the plot and dialogue a plausible method to achieve an overthrow, a method unheard of, which needed only the cooperation of a number of readers. Now, it is against the law to plot to overthrow the government. It is not difficult to imagine the agencies of law enforcement taking action against said author and his book, and enthusiastic readers, as constituting a conspiracy.
Is my scenario so very far fetched? Are the circumstances mitigated by the fact that it is only the "he said" "she said" dialogue of characters?
++++
[QUOTE=abecedarian]Now this goes way beyond the scope of the discussion of The Left Behind series.[/QUOTE]
I am illustrating how the "Left Behind" series may be viewed as a conspiracy on the part of the author and his supporters. How does that digress from the topic?
I thing all my posts have been right on topic, in that the deal with the broader theological context of the "story."
I don't think it is a matter of me being "off topic" but rather a matter of some people feeling discomfort over what is being discussed.
But I am not out to upset people, and I have said a lot already. So I shall say no more. If someone finds some one of these issues that I have raised interesting, they may PM me.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
