An Implicit Statement About Women in Ministry

For almost 150 years the Christian Church has dangerously backslidden towards liberalism and secular humanism. It has done this by ignoring the very plain words of the Bible in favor of the left-wing agenda of abolitionism. It is clear that slavery was a divinely permitted institution that our Lord clearly sanctioned in Scripture for the betterment of society. Slavery runs across the pages of both the Old and New Testament. How any good Christian man or woman could deny the validity of slavery and the social hierarchy involved, which is plainly written on our pages of Scripture, is simply beyond me!

Slavery was not just a Old Testament practice, it was a New Testament one as well. Haven't these liberal, humanist, supposedly "christian" children of the Enlightenment read the Apostle Paul? In the book of Ephesians, right after Paul talks about other social arrangements and relationships, he addresses slavery. He tells slaves to obey their masters with respect and fear (Eph. 6:5)! It also says they are to do this with a sincerity of heart. If you didn't believe Paul when he said it in Ephesians, take a look at Colossians 3:22-24 where he essentially says the same things. And it wasn't just the Apostle Paul who felt this way, Peter did also. Ever read I Peter 2:18-21, you wishy-washy Christians? Peter tells the slaves not only to obey their masters, but to be obedient even when they are harsh and cruel to them (I Pe. 2:18-19).

There are some Christians today who want to just pick and choose what they want to believe. They don't like these passages about slavery so they'd like to just cut them out of the Scriptures. Or worse yet, they bore us with this business about the "historical background" and the "Greek text." Hogwash! I don't need to know any of this whitewashing claptrap about knowing the culture, history and background of the Bible! That would imply that other books or information other than the Bible are needed to understand God's Word! If slavery was good enough for the Apostle Paul and Peter, then it is good enough for me!

It's very obvious these abolitionist Christians are taking their cues from the popular culture. The culture isn't supposed to sway our Christian beliefs. These liberals would rather make friends with the world than with God's Word. Look where we've come. Ever since we gave these coloreds more and more worldly Enlightenment rights, they keep demanding more. It is definitely a sign of the end-times where we have colored pastors preaching up front in White churches. Worse yet, we have descendants from slaves now trying to usurp their proper place in society, in direct defiance of God's word! And some so-called "christians" have the nerve to cheer this on! It's gotten so bad that the liberal media is even fawning over this uppity negro, Barrack Osama or whatever he calls himself, taking seriously this idea that he could run for President! The end-times and the imminent pretribulational rapture must definitely be upon us.

What is so nonsensical about all this is that the Bible already raised the ethical bar with slaves and their masters. Wasn't that enough for them? You find some of the most humane treatment of slaves in the Bible when compared to other religions and cultures. Paul even said in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Now keep in mind that this only means that we are all equal positionally in Christ. Surely, it carries no connotations beyond that and no meaningful applications for other cultural arrangements. But it does show that slaves at least can have salvation.

Don't get me wrong, the stuff about Jews and Greeks does carry more meaning than just being equal positionally in Christ. We know that non-Jews are no longer second class citizens anymore like they were in Jerusalem during the Biblical times of Jesus. But just because Gentiles and Jews are on equal cultural footing doesn't mean that slaves should also eventually be on equal footing with free people. Being positionally equal with Christ should be enough for them. They should be more grateful.

Besides, the Bible never says that slavemasters should be cruel to their slaves. In those same passages I quoted above, masters are told to be nice to their slaves. Paul even urges Philemon, the slave owner, to be nice to his runaway convert slave Onesimus and treat him like a brother when he returns. You see, in the Old Testament, God tells the Israelites to treat slaves better than the surrounding culture did. And in the New Testament, the status of slaves is raised even higher, even showing them positionally equal with free people, at least with Christ. Plus, slaves are afforded a certain amount of dignity that they didn't typically receive from others in that day and age. Clearly, there is a redemptive ethic that spans through the Scriptures. But it is equally clear that this same redemptive ethic should carry no more weight or development in today's 21st century culture than it did then in that 1st century culture. Anyone who says otherwise, and ignores the plain meaning of Scripture, is just being a liberal and letting the godless secular culture tell them what is and isn't moral.

True Bible-believing Christians like me who take the Scriptures seriously know these things. The very words on the Bible are all I need. I don't need to consider this historical-cultural background business. A cultural hierarchy with slaves and masters was a good thing then and I see no reason to say we should change things now. What's next, are we going to say the atonement of Christ is no longer relevant either? Besides, doing all this "Biblical interpretation" stuff these pointy-headed scholars talk about, along with this laborious business of discovering what a text meant then and how it applies today is a lot of work. I really don't feel like putting that much work in, especially when the plain meaning of the text tells me everything I need to know.

If you are a serious Christian and take the plain meaning of the text seriously, then you will stop making excuses for the slavery passages in the Old and New Testaments. Doing so just leads to moral relativism. We need to affirm the goodness of slavery. But it's true that we also need to affirm the goodness of slaves. They are equal in being to us, they just have different roles. My role just happens to be that of a privileged free person. My slave's role as a slave does not make him ontologically inferior to me, in fact, it just complements me. Slaves should celebrate, enjoy, and be grateful for their different roles.

So now, as we enter 2007, we need to reclaim Biblical slavery and see the wonderful and beautiful role that slaves play and how they complement us free people, just the way God surely wants it for all people in all times. If you are a slave reading this, you should not be offended by all this. Rather be thankful for how God has created you and humbly submit and accept your place in society. Doing so will be an awesome spiritual experience for you. I will pray that you stop being rebellious and submit to the wonderful roles available to you as a slave. Remember, you're not less than me, you just have the different societal role as a slave. Praise God!

And to the rest of you so-called "christians," I will pray that God changes your heart and that you begin taking the Bible seriously again. And if you want to take the Bible seriously today in the 21st century, then you need to take slavery seriously. The progress of redemption stopped for these slaves in the late first century with the closing of the Biblical canon. There is no need to add to God's word today (haven't you liberal abolitionist Christians read the warnings in Revelation 22:18-19?!?!). If you want to best apply these the socially redemptive texts and themes in the Bible for those of us living today, then you will urge these slaves to know their proper place and get with the program.

That is by far the best application of God's word for today. It is surely pleasing to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to turn back the clock and rediscover the glorious roles for slaves and their place in a Christ-centered hierarchical society. Amen!

Pre-Marital Sex in America

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/index.html

Figures like this need to be realistically dealt with. If they are inaccurate, as Concerned Women of America assert, then they have to show with real scientific data why this research is wrong and not just say so because they don't like the conclusions. I suspect it's fairly accurate for the most part, if not a bit inflated, but I'd have to see their methodology and sample. I've read other studies looking at just Evangelical Christians which puts the figure at over 80%, still pretty high. And if this is a longitudinal study with a good cross section sample of men and women dating back to those born in the early 40's, then we can discard of this notion that American was generally fine and morally chaste before the 60's. These figures become more interesting when you take into account the fact that many people in the 50's and 60's were getting married between ages 18-21, something not very common today, especially for those under 20. If 95% (or whatever high figure we use) of the people who were getting married at 18 or 19 back then weren't waiting until marriage, then teen pre-marital sex was also a frequent occurrence then as it is now. So while sex wasn't thrown all over advertisements and TV then as it is now, and also people then considered topics of sex much more taboo than today, I suppose this would mean that many people were just quietly very hypocritical then whereas today they just come out and flaunt their values now and don't feel bad about it. I'm actually not sure which one is worse.

In any event, I don't think this means we throw out standards and/or just say they are unrealistic. Not at all. We should continue preaching the same Biblical standards that are true today and always have been true. But perhaps data like this helps us become more understanding and realistic of human desires and frailty, especially in the areas of sexuality. The common approach I heard way too often as a younger Christian when dealing with sex came down basically and only to "It's bad, don't do it" which wasn't terribly helpful and tends to make people feel worse than they already did. I personally believe more openness and frankness on sexual issues is needed and is indeed good--though not the type advocated by society which just flaunts a sinful sexual ethic at every turn. Surely we can counter with something better than that and many could also do better than just silence or embarrassed faces when the subject comes up. If 95% of people are not waiting (a figure which would encompass most Christians it would appear), surely there needs to be a new and better approach in the Christian community to address the issue and help those in need. The good news is, I think we might be on the right track. There's been some decent popular literature on the subject in the past few years that would not have been available in decades past. Hopefully it will be built upon to better address and deal with the issue in the future.

What is the Point of Christmas Cards?

In this next column, I demonstrate why Christmas cards are largely a waste of money and why I almost always am disappointed when I receive them.

Read my manifesto against Christmas cards here.

What do you think? Am I being too big of a Grinch or do I actually have a point about the pointlessness of Christmas cards?

Obama 2008? Is It Possible?

Let's put it this way, it's much more plausible than it was a few months ago. In this piece below, I argue that an Obama candidacy would be formidable and that he would indeed have a chance to win his nomination and make a serious run at the Presidency of the United States. Now, this doesn't mean I want him to win or think he's particularly qualified, but that conservatives and libertarians should take his campaign seriously. Also, if I were Obama and the opportunity was in front of me with a wide open field, I would jump at it as well. Unless New Mexico's Bill Richardson can make some waves, you're probably going to be looking at a three way race between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

Here's why I think the Illinois Senator might be the most practical candidate for the Democrats in 2008.

But what do you think? Feel free to speak your mind. Also, if you're new here, take a look around.

Christian Cultural Mediocrity

What benefit is there in Christians abandoning the popular culture? Why do "Christian businesses" have the perception of offering less than stellar service? What major innovations or cultural contributions have Christians, namely Evangelical Christians offered in recent years?

I examine these questions and others, in this new column you can read here.

What do you think? Am I being unfair or am I on to something?

Barnwell For President in 2020!!!

In satirical honor of our 24 hour news stations and the never-ending political campaign season:

I am hereby officially announcing my intentions to seek the Presidency of the United States in 2020. To get the inside scoop, read the column below. I need the help and support from all of you reading this to help retake our country in fourteen years. Please read the article to see why I am running and why it makes sense to start the campaign process now. Feel free to comment on my candidacy:

I Declare That I Am a Candidate for President!!! (In 2020)

Leaving Behind the Doctrine of the Pre-tribulational "Rapture"

Modern day dispensationalism, with its belief in two peoples of God (the Church and the modern secular nation-state of Israel) and a pretribulational rapture may be extremely popular amongst conservative Protestants today, but historically it was never a considered eschatological position in any major branch of Christianity. Indeed, there is little if any evidence that it was ever articulated before 1830 when it was popularized by John Darby and later by C.I. Scofield (who not only wrote the Scofield Reference Bible, but was also a convicted criminal who deserted his first wife and children after he was saved). Many Evangelicals and fundamentalists are shocked to even learn that there are different points of view regarding the End-Times in regards to the rapture of the church.

The word rapture is never used in the Scriptures, but dispensationalists claim that the concept is indeed found abundantly throughout its pages. Fair enough, since the same is true of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is indeed implicit from a variety of Scriptural verses (Mark 12: 35-37; Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, John 20:28; Acts 5: 3-4; Colossians 1:15-20, 2:9; Philippians 2:5-11; Revelation 22:13, etc, etc). Indeed, contrary to the claims of Jehovahs Witnesses, Unitarians, Muslims, and the like, there is a great deal of Scriptural evidence to flesh out the doctrine of the Trinity. Certainly then, the doctrine of the rapture, should offer similarly compelling evidence since it is such an important doctrine to so many conservative Protestants. Indeed, many pretribulationists consider their position to be so airtight that they label any dissenter of the rapture doctrine as a false teacher. Well then, lets examine the evidence.

There are several passages that rapture proponents point towards to prove their case and unfortunately for them, the text is not saying what they want it to say. A favorite passage is found in Matthew 24:37-41 which reads:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a mill, one will be taken and the other left (NIV).

The key here is verses 40 and 41which talk about people being taken away. Here is clear cut proof of the Messiah coming at an unexpected time to take away believers up to heaven before the tribulation period, right? Well, not if context means anything. Here Jesus is comparing his future coming to the time of the Flood. Notice in verse 39, right before the supposed rapture imagery, who is taken away in the Noah example? Those who were taken away were the evil people who were destroyed by the flood, the same people who were not waiting for the Flood or listening to Noah. Next, Jesus compares it to His future coming and uses this same imagery of people being taken away. Does “taken” mean one thing in verse 39 and a totally different thing in verse 40? That makes no sense, especially if we are considering that Jesus is making an analogy, which by their nature compare similarities. Rather than seeing those taken at the time of Christ’s coming as people being zipped up to heaven in a pretribulational rapture, the context of this passage suggests those who are taken away are those who are not prepared for Christs coming and are being taken to judgment.

Perhaps the verse for the believers in a pretribulational rapture is I Thessalonians 4:13-18. It reads as follows:

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who have fallen asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lords own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words (NIV).

According to those who believe in the secret rapture, this verse is a clear cut proof that Jesus is going to take believers out of the earth before the tribulation period. But where exactly does this passage say that? Grab a Bible and read the surrounding context of the passage. Where is there any discussion about a tribulation or removing believers secretly before an interval of judgment for everybody Left Behind? If anything vv 16-17 in this passage indicate that this coming of the Lord will be a visible event. Nothing in this passage even says anything about believers being zipped up into heaven for seven years. Verse 16 indicates that Christ is coming down from heaven, and that believers would meet Christ in the air. The concept in antiquity of the honored guests greeting the king midway as he was traveling to the banquet and the guests escorting him the rest of the way would have been well understood by the original audience. The same concept and Greek terminology can be found in a letter from Cicero in 49B.C. in which he speaks of the welcoming of Julius Caesar (with the same language found later towards Caesar Augustus) as he toured Italy [1].

Furthermore, the air was considered to be the realm of demons and if Ephesians 2:2 and Colossians 2:15 are any parallel; the stress here would be on Christ breaking their power. This takes place as Christ is returning to earth, which is also described as happening in a visible, not invisible manner elsewhere in Scripture (Acts 1:11). There is no hint that Christ is returning back to heaven after secretly taking believers from the earth before a seven-year tribulation period (The length of a seven year tribulation is only based on one verse, Daniel 9:27, which incorrectly posits a massive 2,000+ year gap between the 26th and 27th verse. This forces verse 27 to be talking about something different than verse 26, even though the context and grammar of the passage does not allow this).

Pretribulationists claim that this isn’t a reference to the Second Coming, but distinguish this being Christ coming for His saints, and the real Second Coming where Christ comes with His saints. However, this two stage end-times return of Jesus is not present in this passage or anywhere else in the NT corpus.
Note that 2 Thessalonians was written to correct the excessive excitement and speculation amongst the original audience, who upon reading 1 Thessalonians were teaching that the return of Christ had already occurred. Paul writes that before Christ’s coming, certain events needed to happen, namely “the rebellion” and the arrival of “the man of lawlessness,” assuming these to be future events from our vantage points in 2006. Most importantly in the beginning of this passage, Paul links the gathering of the believers with the Second Coming, not a prior secret “rapture”:

“Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us saying that the day of the Lord has already come” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).

In I Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul takes up a lengthy discussion about the resurrection of the dead and the resurrection body. Many see the “rapture” in vv.51-52 where Christians will be transformed “in the twinkling of an eye.” However, the passage nowhere states directly or indirectly that this is referring to believers removed before a tribulation period. The rapture can only be found in this text if it is assumed and inserted there. The context is talking about the resurrection of believers that would happen at the time of the general bodily resurrection of believers. In this verse, like several others, pretribulationists must insist that a secret rapture is in question and not the general Second Coming/resurrection of the saints.

The book of Revelation also says nothing about a two-stage return of Jesus. The passages usually thought to do so will now be examined.

Revelation 3:10 is perhaps my favorite pretribulational rapture proof text. It is in a section of Revelation (Chapters 2-3) where Christ addresses seven historical churches of the first century where he admonishes and encourages each church. This particular passage in addressed to the church of Philadelphia. The verse reads as follows:

Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth (NIV).

Many dispensationalists have a very peculiar way of interpreting Revelation 2 and 3. According to many the seven churches may or may not have been real historical churches, but the primary thrust of the passage is supposedly giving a prophetic picture of the church throughout the ages. In this interpretive scheme, the early church of the first century is the church in Ephesus and gets progressively worse until today, where we are now living in or are on the verge of living in the age of the lukewarm church of Laodecia. Various dispensational sources will give you their estimate of what time period correlates to which of the seven churches in Revelation.). The only problem with all this is that it is terribly subjective and is based mainly and seeing the church through a Western lens. For instance, there are plenty of churches in persecuted lands today that are not Laodicean churches, just as there were plenty of churches in early Christendom that could be said to have reflected any of the seven churches. I don’t think I would consider the thriving persecuted church today in China as lukewarm. Nor would I consider many Spirit-led Western churches to be classified as such. It is best to instead see these as seven historical churches of the 1st century that can find application or correlation with many congregations throughout the current church age.

Remember, Revelation was written either in the mid 60s or mid 90s and must be relevant to the people it was addressed to. Revelation is addressed to these seven churches (Rev. 1:4) and is going to be written at least in part about issues that will immediately concern them. Revelation should not be wrenched from its historical context and be seen as a solely futuristic document that only concerns 20th and 21st century Christians. So while there has been great application in chapters 2 and 3 for the Church throughout the ages (and these chapters make great preaching material today), it is a mistake to say that these chapters are primarily referential to various normative stages in church history.

If such is the case, how then could Revelation 3:10 be talking about a pretribulational rapture since we are already past that stage in church history (if we believe that chapters 2 and 3 are primarily revealing progressive stages of church history)? If we are now in the Laodecian era, then apparently a bunch of us missed the rapture! It rather makes more sense to view 3:10 in light of the historical circumstances of that day and the hour of trouble that the church was going to face under imperial Roman persecution. Even if 3:10 is speaking secondarily beyond the immediate historical circumstances and hinting towards final end-times events, which is possible, there still is no warrant to see this passage referring to a secret invisible rapture.

There is nothing said in this passage about secretly removing Christians from the earth, rather it stresses Gods protection of believers from His judgments on the ungodly. This should be distinguished, however, from the persecution inflicted upon the righteous by the unfaithful (Revelation 2:10, 7:14). Regarding Revelation and tribulation there is a “great tribulation” described in 7:14 that is probably referring to the full number of Christians (or Christian martyrs) throughout history enduring through the tribulation period. But even if this passage is solely regulated to a period of time in the future, notice that the multitude comes out of the “great tribulation,” they do not escape it. There is nothing in this text here to suggest that the saints escape the great tribulation. According to New Testament scholar Craig Keener, “They have endured the dramatic end-time Tribulation and proved faithful to death.”

Revelation 4:1 forms a new unit in Revelation and is also seen as a pivotal verse to believers in a pretribulational rapture. To some, this is supposedly John’s own personal rapture described in this new section of Revelation where John goes up to heaven and gets a tour before the next section begins (the next section starting in chapter 6 which begins a section supposedly referring to exclusively distant future judgments during the tribulation period according to dispensationalists). John sets a pattern for our own rapture, or at least supposedly so.

A close reading of the text, however, does not agree with the above interpretation. The John who is writing this book is functioning as a prophet and the style of this literature is apocalyptic, meaning the imagery is highly symbolic in many respects (all apocalyptic literature involves the use symbolism and the use of bizarre and even frightening imagery to convey to readers the unfolding of generally unknown matters). What John sees here cannot be said to be a literal description of the inhabitants of heaven as he is clearly also borrowing from Old Testament imagery and applying it accordingly. Compare the differences between John’s vision in chapter four and Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1. After John is told to come up here (to heaven) we are told that he is in the Spirit and once he is in the Spirit, he begins his heavenly vision. Therefore, a physical ascent up to heaven is probably not what is being talked about here, but rather an ecstatic vision in apocalyptic language which then sets up for the succeeding imagery in chapters five and six.

(Far from being liberal with the text, it is instead simply a matter of interpreting this particular genre of literature as it is meant to be interpreted. Many interpreters of Revelation think they are being faithful to the Biblical text by interpreting apocalyptic symbols in a literal fashion, and see any elements of non-literal interpretation as watering down Gods word. But when the language is as metaphorical and symbolic as we have in Revelation, what is often meant to be conveyed is not literal images. The figurative language, however, is used to convey very real and literal messages! Besides, dispensationalists are hardly literal with their interpretations unless they really want to argue that the antichrist is a scarlet monster with seven heads and seven horns, that Satan is really a big red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, that Satan has a literal tail that is going to literally fling a third of the stars in space down to earth, that Jesus is going to have a literal sword come form out his mouth, etc, etc.)

The idea that John experiences his own rapture which sets the stage for a later Christian rapture is necessary for the next argument. It is argued that since the word church is not used again in Revelation until 22:16, the church will not be present on earth during the judgments described in chapters 6 onward. This assumes several things: (1) John is only describing events in the far distant future which have nothing to do with his contemporaries to whom he is writing, or to Christians throughout the general church age (2) That John’s rapture in 4:1 sets the stage for the Church’s own rapture before these future judgments begin (or, if 4:1 was not a description of Johns rapture as some dispensationalists admit, it is still presupposed that the church is raptured before the judgments begin), and (3) all references to the saints (i.e. Christians) in chapters five through nineteen are only a reference to Tribulation Saints who convert to Christianity after the church has been raptured during the tribulation period.

To assume that the saints mentioned throughout the middle of Revelation (see 6:9, all of chapter 7, the saints of chapter 14, etc) are only people who have converted after the rapture is just a faulty presupposition coupled with circular reasoning. The thinking goes, “Well, of course those saints only converted after the rapture happened because we know the rapture happens before the tribulation.” Based on what? If it’s the above Biblical evidence, then there is no reason to assume that these are just converted “Tribulation Saints” and that prior to this tribulation period all true Christians were removed from the earth. So while the word Church isn’t used in the middle of Revelation, it really makes no difference, because the saints who make up the church are clearly present all throughout Revelation. The only way to conclude that earlier Christians were raptured away before the judgments and persecutions is to make grand assumptions from very flimsy evidence and circular reasoning.

Other reasons trotted out in support of a secret rapture before the real Second Coming are just as questionable. I’ve heard arguments like, “Just like God protected His faithful in the past, He will do so in the future.” Noah is usually the prime example used. Well, its true that in earlier Scriptures that God doesn’t rain down His punishment on the righteous as he does with the unrighteous (such as the unfaithful people during Noah’s day, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc), also keep in mind that the Church has never been given a pass from human persecution and martyrdom. In fact, the Church has always been a martyr Church. All one needs to do is read the Book of Acts and know a little bit about Church history. Why should we assume a future generation will be any different? Rather, the Left Behind theology appears more to be unwarranted escapism from the realities set before the Church to endure hardship.

There is much more that can be said about problems with an invisible rapture of the Church before a visible coming of Jesus. I’ll explore some other practical logical absurdities in the near future. But dispensationalism’s excesses span beyond just the rapture. There are many problems with their overall misunderstanding of prophecy, both in the Old and New Testaments, their belief in two separate programs for the Church and Israel, and even some of their strange ideas of performing animal sacrifices in a rebuilt temple during Christ’s millennial reign (have they read the book of Hebrews?!). Also, their overall beliefs on these issues affect their political beliefs in the present day which lead to some dispensationalists basically opposing any sort of peace for the Middle East, lest the rapture be delayed. This is very troublesome and needs to be refuted. Not only that, it does not agree with Jesus command to be peacemakers and good stewards of the earth.

None of this suggests that dispensationalists on a whole are bad people. Many of my Christian friends are dispensationalists and are very good people and good Christians; I just think they are wrong on these end-times issues. Rather than dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists declaring each other anathema, all sides in this eschatological debate should continue arguing and airing their views. It has great implications for the Christian’s theology and even political beliefs. More importantly, denominations should not be making the issue of the rapture a central tenet of their theology, especially pretribulationalists who are resting their case on such little evidence.

Finally, rather than thinking of ways to ignore the world, Christians of all stripes should continue thinking of how to have maximum impact while they are here. Even those like myself who are in the non-dispensational wing of premillennialism (historical premillennialism) need to beware of escapist or abandonment type thinking in our relationship to the world. The ultimate goal of Scripture is not an escape from all that is material, ala Gnosticism, but rather a recreation of the heavens and earth (Revelation 21).

Christians do need to be prepared at all times to meet their maker, either because of physical death or the Second Coming, which will come like a thief in the night. But believers would be better served if they put down their elaborate multi-colored prophecy charts and took Christ’s words seriously that no man knows the day or the hour. As long as any of us are here on earth, we have responsibilities and a life in the here and now before us.

We ought then to make the best of it.

What Is the Biblical Approach to the Immigration Controversy?

I'd like to think of myself as a fairly open-minded and socially concerned Evangelical. Many socially concious Evangelicals find themselves defending the Open Borders lobby and accusing dissenting Evangelicals of promoting injustice and tyranny. Looking at all the evidence, I think such Evangelicals are well intentioned but dead wrong. Here is my latest piece from Vdare that argues that the restrictionist position itself certainly is not anti-Biblical, and may even be more Biblical than the alternative.

Read the full column here. Feel free to comment.