I just read something that I consider a flabbergasting idiota. Not someone, something. Part of what put me out was the fact that it was given something of an imprimatur by Josh Claybourn, a blogger on the higher levels of the Christian blogger hierarchy. He agreed with this, Evangelicals invoke political holy war.
Let’s ignore that inflammatory title for a second and zero in on the ridiculous submission that Evangelical Christians are on the warpath due to … get yourself prepared ( teehee, pun fun here)… THE RAPTURE!
Yes, friends and neighbors, this is the nefarious plan of Christians : to invoke Holy War and destroy all the evil dissidents on the premise that there will be a rapture. Let’s now ignore the fact that, while the author did a cursory once over on the types of tribulation doctrine, he had a total misconception of what the teaching on this subject is in its context : The Second Coming of Jesus.
It is not about a temporal establishment of heaven upon earth through political means. There may be some odd fringe group out there that someone can dig up to illustrate that type of thinking, but it is not Evangelical Christian doctrine.
First mistake is switching the true doctrine, that there are two competing kingdoms spiritually, for one where we categorize everything and everyone on earth that way. Yes, we believe there is good and evil and that things fall under the sponsorship of one or the other; we don’t believe that about people or even the institutions of people, which can follow either good or evil or confusedly both in competing motivations. The Bible says that the whole world is under the spiritual sway of darkness, but do we imagine that to mean that we are ready to destroy the whole world? C’mon people. Think.
What we believe is that the Daniel vision of kingdoms transition began with the arrival of Christ, and we believe it is a spiritual transition. Do we believe there is such a thing as endtimes? Most of us, yes. Do we take certain events as signposts in this time period? Most of us, yes. And all this mixing of doctrine and political views and events might be what confused the reader and made it appear that what was being promoted had merit, but look at the initial and main premise:
So what motivates this rising political force of evangelical Christianity? What guides them in the voting booth? Listening to Christian talk radio and reading evangelical Web sites provides a clear answer: It’s the rapture.
Total bunk. Bunk, because the rapture has nothing to do with political actions, it (in concept) is the waiting for the return of Christ and the great hope that we will someday be with Him forever. That is what the rapture is; the word rapture is the expression for the event of joining with Jesus. The official term is Parousia. It is something of heavenly concern, not earthly concern. Its greatest motivation is to live uprightly and keep ourselves blameless, not harming others and doing good in the manner of Jesus Christ, so we will be ready, at His coming, for the life in Heaven.
Would to God we heard more about the Rapture and its implications! Perhaps more of us would have the fear of God to act more reasonably, responsibly, and keep our mouths from the evil cursing and railing that is so prevalent in our age. Would to God! Amen!
Is that Evangelical enough for you?
Second point. The guy doesn’t even have his history right: “evangelical Christianity has spread from rural churches in the South”. Maybe that is what you think up in Alaska, but that just isn’t true. Evangelicalism has been around for quite awhile and had its strongest spread and establishment throughout the North. It is quite reputable and far reaching…. even to the small rural churches in the South, which I don’t intend to disparage. If one hopes to censure Evangelicalism with “red neck” overtones, as it appears in the article, then there better be some homework behind the insinuating of stereotype.
Some reading material for you to start with, Evangelicalism, Revivalism, and the Second Great Awakening
===I’ll make this last part short=====
but I am warning you that I can go on in depth about it if needed.
But in hard-line evangelical activism, opposing points of view are perceived to be demonic, leaving little room for compromise.
Haven’t read much of the Left, let alone Hard-line Left Activism lately, by any chance? Which the article is just playing into, by the way.
Evangelical activism in politics is about the issues. And a pro-life stance is among the forefront of those. Opposing points of view are indeed a travesty, but demonic….? You watch too many of those Buffy shows, methinks.
And Josh Claybourn, read the article over again, please. A little more carefully, if you wouldn’t mind. Thanks.