It was one of those rare, perfect moments in preaching.
While living in Florida some years back, due to limited choices I
was attending a church of a different denomination than my own. It was a
large, growing, dynamic congregation. The pastor announced a series of
sermons on Revelation. But when he started preaching, it quickly became
clear he was not teaching the Dispensational Premillenial (i.e., Left Behind) interpretation that's so popular in our day. He was an amillennialist.
Many congregation members were not happy about this, and made their opinion known.
After a few weeks of controversy, the pastor got into the pulpit one
Sunday morning and announced that, for the sake of peace, he was
discontinuing the sermon series on the End Times. Instead, he would take
up a topic that would trouble people less.
“I'm going to preach on Hell,” he said.
Growing up in a Lutheran pietist church (yes, there are such
creatures; I had no idea how rare we were at the time), I was introduced
early to Dispensational Premillennialism, and had no idea there was any
other way to approach eschatology.
In the years since, I've been sufficiently exposed to other systems (Joe Carter served up an excellent overview over at First Things
yesterday) to leave me largely agnostic on the subject. When I hear
speakers on the radio suggesting that anyone who holds a different view
from theirs probably has a low view of scripture, I can only marvel at
their assurance. As a Lutheran, I lean toward amillennialism, but my
strongest conviction in this realm is that God probably didn't intend to
give us a detailed timetable, so that we could pay off our mortgages
ahead of time (or pile up a lot of debt, depending on our attitudes
toward commerce and banking).
But I do find one item in prophecy that suggests to me (I certainly
don't insist on it) that these may well be the last days of the last
times.
The apostle Paul writes in 2 Timothy 4:3-4, “For the time will
come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit
their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of
teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn
their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” I don't
think it's a big jump to connect this passage to the description of the
great harlot of Revelation 17, frequently interpreted as a symbol for an
apostate church.
We've seen great corruption in the church at many times in history.
We've seen laxity, and hypocrisy, and pride, and bigotry,
bloodthirstiness, and simony.
But (as far as I'm aware) there has never been a time in history
when we've seen great segments of the institutional church openly
turning their backs on the Scripture, the creeds, the teachings of the
Fathers—the faith once delivered to the saints.
This is a new thing.
Is it a sign of the approaching apocalypse?
I would never insist on it.
But I (personally) suspect it.
I guess I’ve never really outgrown the Pre-mill teaching I received in my earliest years as a Christian. I like to think of it as “plan A– you know, get raptured, avoid the tribulation, etc; but if that doesn’t work out, then we go to plan “B” and figure out how to deal with that Anti-Christ fellow and all the persecution unleashed by him and his demonic hordes. Fortunately, end times interpretations need not divide those who hold to the authority of scripture. But to teach on Hell, now that’s another matter. That often defines the fault line between the faithful and the apostate.
Only God knows if these times are times of the near end. But it seems to me that Satan himself seems to believe that the time of his greatest triumph is at hand. The audacity of the enemies of Christ, the overweening confidence as they mass their forces and claim new ground almost daily in corrupting the institutions of our society and magnifying sin among all peoples seem to suggest as much. Of course, we pray for a drawing back from the brink, a revival of genuine Christianity in our own nation and an extended season for proclaiming the gospel.
But if that is not to be the case and we are to be plunged into the final paroxysms of man’s rebellion followed by God’s sure judgement, would we wish to live in any other time? Maranatha. Come Lord Jesus.
Amen, Brother Bob. And again I say, Amen. Preach it!
Upon reading your insightful article, a couple of things are quickened unto me:
(1) Isaiah 9:8-17 and in particular verse 16 thereof which reads, “For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and those who are led by them are destroyed.” Suffice it to say, it is very important under whose leadership and teaching we place ourselves in order that our love for the truth of God’s word does not grow cold and we lapse over into the lawlessness which will abound (Matthew 24:12).
(2) We continue to stand on Acts 17:26 as God had chosen from before the foundation of the world that we would be living in this dispensation of time. He will give us the strength, wisdom and courage to live through it if we will follow Him.
(3) Let us draw comfort and instruction from the words of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 24:44, “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
Again, thank you for stirring my spirit.
But (as far as I’m aware) there has never been a time in history when we’ve seen great segments of the institutional church openly turning their backs on the Scripture, the creeds, the teachings of the Fathers—the faith once delivered to the saints.
The Arian controversy was at least as great, and Arius had a lot of Scripture on his side. A majority, at least, of the world’s bishops followed him. Of course, it was a world where not every believer was expected to have strong or informed opinions, or even understand very much about theological controversies. The faithful more or less believed whatever their bishop, by way of their not always well-educated local pastor, told them, which greatly mitigates their guilt in the case of heretical doctrine.
So I suppose the sheer fraction of nominally Christian people today in eternal danger may be greater today than it was then, but still… it is probably safe to say that you can at least find an orthodox church within a 50 mile radius in most places. This was certainly not the case in many regions in the 4th century.
I’m probably revealing my historical ignorance here, but I think the situations are somewhat different. At the time of the Arian controversy, the church at large hadn’t yet completely worked out the correct formulas of faith. They were still recovering from centuries of persecution. Once the matter had been settled and codified in the creeds, it seems to me, heterodoxy became a different kind of error. The Arian’s error was that of a schoolboy who hasn’t yet fully mastered his material. The modernist’s error is that of the… the modernist, who kicks over the boundary markers purely to be transgressive and to sell books.
I would agree with the writer. It seems the so called church does not want to preach on the hard things of God. Those messages do not fill the pews or bring in money. That is why whenever you see a mega church it is most likely teaching a watered down version of christianity. What is called cheap grace. In the case of churches bigger does not always mean better. Nor does it mean that that church is blessed either.