Introduction to Eschatology: "They all...fell asleep"

To recap: prophecy isn't about figuring things out in advance; it's about recognizing the hand of God when he acts, or at least soon afterward.

But if that's so, why bother with prophecy?

The simple answer is that recognizing God at work can stabilize you in the midst of chaos. What is a horror to someone else is a sign to you, and that's especially useful if you're already under fire.

Have you ever considered the contrast, nearly the contradiction, between the wise virgins of Matt 25:1-13 and the frequent warning to watch (Matt 26:41, 1 Thess 5:4-8, etc.)? Matt 25:5 says "they all [wise virgins included] became drowsy and fell asleep." I think the contexts are different: when we are called on to stay awake in Matt 26, it's literal wakefulness to allow prayer; in Thessalonians, the idea is that we will fall asleep morally and become like the unsaved people around us, unprepared for the coming judgment.

And it's preparation that constitutes wisdom in the parable: all fell asleep, but only the wise were ready to act the moment they came to. The foolish strike me as being those people who claim they'll get serious about serving God when the Antichrist shows up. They won't, of course: if they can't be bothered to serve God in comparatively easy times, they certainly won't turn into super saints when the persecution starts. They're more likely to take the Mark.

(Personal nag: this is another reason I despise most books like the Left Behind series: they encourage the view that you can be a worldly "Christian" and still be saved in the end by transforming from couch potato to Olympic athlete under the pressure of the Tribulation. It doesn't work, and many may wind up in Hell because of such nonsense.)

So what's the use of studying prophecy? Well, if you really are studying prophecy itself--what God says, not what some expert says he says--the Holy Spirit will help you see the sign and recognize the encouragement. But if all you know is what someone says about the Bible, that won't get you anywhere. Knowing the Bible is more important than knowing about the Bible, just as knowing God is more important than knowing about God. But these days most Christians know prophecy second-hand at best.

Next time I'll look at a few problems the modern prophecy industry (for it certainly isn't a ministry) has created. We might as well start with the timing of the Rapture and why it should not be the big deal prophecy pundits say it is.

The Manasseh Factor

Yesterday I said I would try to justify invoking the apocalypse concerning Obama's presidency. As it happens, he has given me a case in point.

You see, while some people are sure that Obama is the Antichrist, that's a bit of a reach for me. I will agree that the sort of person who fell for his publicity and charisma would probably think the Antichrist was a wonderful person too. Such people have flunked a major test. They should try to improve with God's help.

But it's actually abortion that is the critical issue in my opinion. Let's look at one of the greatest revivals you could ask for, as recorded in 2 Kings 23. And let's start with verses 24-25:

24 Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the LORD.
25 Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did-- with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses. (NIV)

Now, given the modern emphasis on God's grace, the result is obvious: Josiah turned to God, so everything will be all right. Right?

Wrong. Enter verse 26:

26 Nevertheless, the LORD did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh had done to provoke him to anger.

Okay, wait--what's this about Manasseh? Well, he was heavily into idolatry and magic, but he had other bad habits too. Let's back up to 2 Kings 21:

6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.

Child sacrifice was a big deal then. They waited until the kid was born, but it was chucking a kid into the dumpster for personal gain, kind of like having an abortion to avoid having a kid to bother with.

But wait, there's more:

16 Moreover, Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end-- besides the sin that he had caused Judah to commit, so that they did evil in the eyes of the LORD.

As a nation, we've been wallowing in the innocent blood of aborted children for more than thirty-five years now. We have elected the most pro-abortion president in our history. If he continues to act in favor of killing innocent people, will we not pass Manasseh's line? This is why I called him an "apocalyptically bad" choice. Left to himself, he is very likely to fill America with even more innocent blood than has already been shed, and at some point we will find we have gone too far.

What can we do? Well, we can humble ourselves and pray that God will give the president a revelation concerning how evil some of his pet policies are. God is our only hope and prayer our only weapon.

President Obama: a Christian Response

I said before the election--well before it--that I believed Obama would be an "apocalyptically bad" choice for president. He's now president anyway. But I'd like to explain my use of the word "apocalyptically" and explain how to respond to the current situation.

Actions have consequences, and in my next post I'll go into why I think the current president could lead to the destruction of the country. For now, I'll sketch the current situation for those who may not have been paying attention.

While the president does have a number of frankly disturbing traits--especially his tendency to stifle dissenting views--I admit that his stance on abortion particularly troubles me. He was one of the only senators who thought it should be legal for a doctor to reach into the birth canal, reposition the baby to come out head last, and then punch through the skull and brain at the last moment, killing the child. This is also known as "partial-birth abortion"; it's probably the most obviously evil form of abortion there is. It's also the least justifiable, because under virtually any imaginable circumstances, it's more invasive and dangerous to the mother than simply giving birth.

Yet the current president supports it. He also opposed keeping alive any kids who might survive an abortion.

On the other hand, he is the president, and as Christians we are to subordinate ourselves to the ruling authorities.

So what do we do?

To begin with, we need to repent. It doesn't bother me quite so much when the unsaved do something stupid; they're rebelling against the omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God, so they can't be that bright anyway. But when we act the same way, that's frightening. I confess that I did not deal with the election properly from a spiritual standpoint; in general, I think we did too little too late. And if you voted for killing the unborn, well, you have some repenting to do as well.

Then we should pray for the president. As we read in Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases." God can cause him to act better than he is, and that is likely our only hope.

I also think it is reasonable and righteous to ask God to send the curse of Babel on his enemies: whenever there is an attempt to enact some wicked law or policy, may God bring confusion and division upon his enemies. This does not involve sedition on our part, and certainly no violence or even threats. Leave it in God's hands. But asking for him to bring strife upon the ungodly has a very long biblical pedigree.

Next up, my justification for invoking the apocalypse.

The Shadow and Night 2: The Horror We SHOULD Feel

A while back I got involved in a discussion about the place of sex and violence in Christian fiction. I never really understood the viewpoint of the one who started the thread, but he asserted that a writer has to go into gory details about violence in particular (and perhaps sex). Otherwise, the reader wouldn't have the full impact of the evil.

Now, I've seen a lot of stories about serial killers and other sensational objects, and my question is, how relevant is that? How many serial killers do you actually know? C. S. Lewis said that the horrors of the Nazi death camps originated in clean, modern offices staffed by ordinary people. It's a diversion to point people toward horror-movie psychos, because we can shudder and say, "But I'm not like that." We are then turned away from the horrible creature in the mirror.

So I replied that it would take more skill and better serve the cause of Christ to reveal the full horror of a white lie than to titillate readers with sensational gore. Don't pursue the uncommon evil; portray the vileness of commonplace sin!

But it's one thing to say that and another to do it. Chris Walley does it in The Shadow and Night.

Do you know what the book's first unimaginable act of wickedness is?

It's a lie--a silly, trivial untruth that most of us would forget immediately. But here, it is an unthinkable breach of God's peace. It's followed closely by another departure that most of us wouldn't think wrong at all, though Walley's case against it is sound. Is it any wonder that in losing our horror of the small sins, it takes more and more sensational ones to stir us?

This is why, personal theology aside, Walley needed the postmill setting. Only after millennia of righteousness could there be enough innocence to show us the proper response to sin.

I hope I'm wrong, but I expect many to disagree with and dismiss the idea of forbidding certain types of research and development. Some of the things banned under the story's Technology Protocols are common in sci-fi, and many Christians will see nothing wrong with them. They will even demonize opponents of such technology as medievals and Luddites. But while Walley doesn't present a full argument against such things as human-level artificial intelligence or genetic tinkering to create new people or species, such arguments exist. (I take a similar view in my upcoming series "The League of Superheroes.") We tend to assume that "inevitable" technologies are good or at least neutral. If The Shadow and Night helps dispell that illusion and restore a proper judgment of good and evil to the Church, it will have proved itself more worthy than most Christian fiction of the last few decades.

Other blogs on the CSFF tour:
Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Grace Bridges
Jackie Castle
Carol Bruce Collett
Valerie Comer
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Chris Deanne
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Marcus Goodyear
Rebecca Grabill
Jill Hart
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Timothy Hicks
Christopher Hopper
Heather R. Hunt
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Margaret
Rachel Marks
Shannon McNear
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Pamela Morrisson
Eve Nielsen
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Deena Peterson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachelle Sperling
Donna Swanson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Jason Waguespac
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

The Shadow and Night 1: The Horror!

For those who followed last month's posts on Jeffrey Overstreet's Auralia's Colors, I have posted a follow-up.

Chris Walley's The Shadow and Night, published by Tyndale, is ambitious in more ways than one. Perhaps most astonishing, it does not follow the typical pre-tribulation scenario in which the end of the world is near. Instead, it draws on the postmillennial view that God will someday grant a golden age of restrained sinfulness and a general triumph of the Gospel--somewhat like the premillennial view of the Millennium, only without the return of Christ beforehand or his personal, visible reign.

Obviously all concerned should be burned at the stake.

Okay, no, they should be commended for not mindlessly following the crowd, and I hope that there's no barking about heresy. Postmillennialism has been around for quite a while, and great and godly men have espoused it--Jonathan Edwards, for example, and more recently the late Dr. D. James Kennedy. I was startled to find a letter from the author included with the book, presenting an explanation and brief defense of the postmill setting. I am horrified to think the letter's probably necessary. (Then again, my own observation and experience is that most pew-sitters have no clue about theology, and most Christian readers couldn't tell an actual heresy from a hole in the ground. They'll still form an angry mob quickly enough if Someone Important yells "Heresy!" Most of these important people are pretty ignorant too.)

If it accomplished nothing else, this book would be important simply for letting ignorant Christians know that the lands beyond Leftbehindia are not God-forsaken wastes teeming with dragons. There are Christians out there, and you might as well stop by for a visit.

It is far more important than that, however. There's also the fact that it is thoroughly, openly Christian without being preachy. For all those who think that's impossible--and I have encountered many--I dare you to read this with an open mind. Yet even that is not its major strength. In my next post, I'll try to explain and defend what I think is its greatest achievement; for now, I'll present a summary of the story itself.

The Shadow and Night was originally published in two parts as The Shadow at Evening and The Power of the Night. The current book is the first of three parts; the other two are The Dark Foundations (already in print!) and The Infinite Day (due in June 2008). Together they constitute "The Lamb Among the Stars." This is how the story begins:

Listen!

This is the tale of how, at last, evil returned to the Assembly of Worlds, and how one man, Merral Stefan D'Avanos, became caught up against it.

The story begins in A.D. 13851 on Farholme, which began to undergo terraforming more than ten thousand years earlier. Earlier still, midway through the twenty-first century, the Great Intervention occurred, and God sovereignly moved upon mankind to convict the world of sin. Although evil has still cropped up, it is uncommon, and most people find it almost inconceivable. A kind of star gate technology was developed soon after, and the push to colonize the galaxy began and continued through thousands of years of peace and righteousness.

But now that has been shattered on the most distant and isolated colony world, and Merral and his friends must struggle against evil for the first time in millennia. The enemy is invading not only their world but their hearts.

I'll be posting on this book and its ramifications beyond the tour, in case anyone's interested.

Other links on the tour:
Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Grace Bridges
Jackie Castle
Carol Bruce Collett
Valerie Comer
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Chris Deanne
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Marcus Goodyear
Rebecca Grabill
Jill Hart
Katie Hart
Michael Heald
Timothy Hicks
Christopher Hopper
Heather R. Hunt
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Margaret
Rachel Marks
Shannon McNear
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Mirtika or Mir's Here
Pamela Morrisson
Eve Nielsen
John W. Otte
John Ottinger
Deena Peterson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachelle Sperling
Donna Swanson
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Jason Waguespac
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

Spiritual RPGs--summary

Do RPGs have to be spiritual? If you mean, "Do they have to feature witnessing and prayer meetings?" then the answer is No. But I doubt a Christian will (yes, or "should") feel comfortable participating in a world that by its nature excludes God. I'm not advocating "Church: the Roleplaying Game!" (that happens too much as it is), just RPGs that are open to my faith. And as I discovered in my writing, not only does giving God the best seat at the table leave plenty of story lines, it also leads to better ones.

A narrative (purposeful, creative) emphasis is more in tune with Christian views than a random, mechanistic one.

Immersive games are more likely to affect your views and behavior. An old-fashioned dungeon-crawl game on the computer isn't as likely to harm you as a first-person shooter or a game where you're stealing cars and beating people up.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see some games that feature a Christian premise without trying to mechanize the spiritual aspect. For example, a Christian version of Dogs in the Vineyard set either in early times or perhaps in a "post-Apocalyptic" (Hollywood sense) period would be good. (An RPG based on on Frank Creed's Flashpoint is under development.) I would tend toward a "rules-lite" approach such as Risus for general gaming and narrate the spiritual phenomena.

I'd like to hear about any games you come up with along these lines. Perhaps if we can pioneer instead of just cloning secular games, we'll get some useful, even evangelistic, dialog going. For a truly Christian RPG that encourages thoughtful, biblical narrative could make it Satan's turn to ask whether RPGs are "threat or menace."

Spiritual Roleplaying II

Since a more narrative approach can reinforce a Christian worldview, is that good enough? Not always.

Back in high school, I knew a lot of gamers who seemed to think that the vicarious experience they gained from games was roughly equivalent to life experience. It isn't. For one thing, it's possible to be fooled. I pulled an apparently clever trick in a D&D game once that I later discovered was physically impossible--yet the justification that I used and my DM/ref accepted was physics!

Free Clue #1: You can fool the ref, but you can't fool God.

But sometimes the very nature of the game situation is contradictory. For example, a lot of Christian groups (especially youth groups) roleplay witnessing and similar situations. It makes sense: by playacting the situation, newbies get used to the unfamiliar aspects in a safe environment.

This is why it's a catastrophically bad idea:

Witnessing (like the other things they enjoy roleplaying) is a spiritual phenomenon. Sound familiar? The great weakness of RPGs is handling spiritual matters--and here it is far worse. When you are really witnessing, you can count on God to inspire you. Will he inspire you with the hypothetically right approach to a hypothetical situation? No. (God doesn't seem to like hypothetical questions, probably because on spiritual topics in particular, they turn from reality to unreality.)

So what do you learn from these exercises? Well, if God isn't helping you, you learn to rely on your own wisdom rather than God's. Does that sound like a good idea? Yet this sort of exercise is extremely common, at least in the U.S. (and thus probably in many other places). The proper way to learn witnessing is either to jump out and do it or pair up with someone more experienced. (This used to be called discipleship.) If you pair up, you give prayer and other support to the guy who's doing the main work, and then you trade off, and your mentor can help you when you get into trouble.

Of course, we aren't going to do that, because like parents reading to their kids instead of plunking them down in front of the tube, it takes time and effort.

You might try it anyway.

In the next post, I'll try to sum all this up.

The Angel and the Force-field

When medieval students got bored with the usual descriptions of their assigned topics ("Is there a difference between existence in space and extension in space?"), they spiced the topic titles up a bit ("How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"). So...

Imagine that you have a spherical force-field around you. The field generator is inside the sphere with you, and you have an improbably good power supply. The Death Star couldn't penetrate your defenses. But there's an angel (or demon or ghost) outside wanting in. Can your force-field fend off a spirit entity?

I would say no: otherwise, it would technically be possible to defeat or at least frustrate a spirit by non-spiritual means. Yet a common theme of the Bible is the superiority of the spiritual over the physical.

Why does it matter? I see a lot of tech vs. spirit in the secular media, but the attitude is seeping into Christian work as well. I'm not surprised that the "Ghostbusters" were able to use technology to shut down spirit beings: it was a secular movie. But what about us? I've seen texts where someone using a regular weapon or a gadget drives off a demon. It won't happen. We do not fight using human weapons but God-given spiritual power. This is an area where I agree with Peretti: when his heroes fight against spiritual darkness, they do it by prayer and sometimes miraculous power.

Some trust in chariots [the high tech of that day] and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. They are brought to their knees and fall, but we rise up and stand firm. Psalm 20: 7-8