Does our eschatology block our creative thinking?

« Toward 2010: Surveillance

The challenge of population growth »

Tomorrow

Does our eschatology block our creative thinking?

Posted by Justin Long ⋅ February 6, 1992 ⋅

Email This Post ⋅

Print This Post ⋅ View comments

Within evangelical culture there is a ‘grand tradition’ of apocalyptic literature. Some 49% of Americans believe biblical prophecy predicts the future better than the Farmer’s Almanac, astrologers or pollsters (Wired). A whole section of the forthcoming World Christian Encyclopedia is devoted to future events. The top books on the Publisher’s Weekly religion best-seller list now—and for the last four years—are the Left Behind series, of which there are 3 million copies sold and the latest book, Apollyon, is steadily climbing the New York Times bestseller list.

Unfortunately evangelical eschatology is very rigid and often tries to fit events into its own window on history. Evangelicals always expect the end in the near-term, but for all we know, it could be a very-long-term event (ie more than 200 years in the future). If we try to interpret events based on one specific endtimes scenario, we can miss other trends which are reshaping the landscape. It’s better to keep our eyes open and watch for all possibilities.

For example, take digital cash. There are many concerns over the future of ‘e-cash’—electronic cash for ‘online’ transactions over the Internet or via smart cards. This is particularly true as VISA debuted its ‘smart’ cash card at the 1996 Olympics, enabling the elimination of paper money in favor of a digital card.

Proponents of e-cash point to the numerous benefits: it’s one more weapon to monitor and track illegal transactions; it’s safer than carrying around a lot of money; it’s easier to use and easier to manage. Privacy watchdogs are concerned about monitoring, but certain e-cash formats are as anonymous and cash, and in any event every transaction is put on a computer somewhere, whether it is done by e-cash or check. Eschatological scenarios introduce a more sinister aspect: where e-cash leads the way to a computer-controlled system in which large blocks of people are exiled from the economy—the “mark of the beast.” (Larry Burkett’s Illuminati is one example.)

Historically, there have been many times when the world was ruled by a single empire, and shared certain common things. Under the Roman Empire there was a common road system, trade language and currency. The Roman Empire persecuted Christians horribly and its emperors set themselves up as gods to be worshipped, but that didn’t stop Christians from spreading the Gospel, and may have in fact helped. The advantages of a single world government enabled the Gospel to spread quickly.

Peter, John and Paul undoubtedly used Roman currency without concern that it was the “mark of the Beast.” Jesus certainly did. Although the Mark will likely incorporate an economic system, reason tells us it cannot be solely an economic system. It must be something that demands total allegiance (perhaps an elite group such as the Nazi party or the triple-S pictured in the fictional Earth King).

There are ways in which modern e-Cash can be as big a boon to world evangelism as the ancient Roman currency. First, it can deal with the issue of operating in local currencies, since smart cards could automatically convert currency and provide cash anywhere in the world. Second, it could help reduce ecclesiastical crime and make accounting systems easier to manage. Third, it could make it easier and more acceptable to receive direct, automatic, regular contributions and spontaneous gifts via the Internet, which in turn will reduce the costs of administering contributions.

Evangelicals concerned with the endtimes are also often concerned with a single world religion—a ‘mystery’ faith, epitomized in the term ‘Babylon.’ Some have pointed with concern to current strides in interfaith dialogue. A case can easily be made for ecumenical dialogue—people of different denominations or traditions discussing Christianity. Interfaith dialogue is more difficult, particularly when one envisions a future “United Religions Organization.” Is this the future we want? What about the Truth, and when do we stand up for it?

Interfaith dialogue happens when members of different religions sit down together and discuss their faith and how it relates to issues they face every day (e.g. development, human rights, morality, ethics, etc). There are two fatal mistakes that we as Christians can make on interfaith dialogue: First, we can assume that every situation should be met with interfaith dialogue (that is, pastors should meet together, and there should be no proclamation to the laity). Second, we can assume that no situation calls for interfaith dialogue (we should never speak with pastors of other religions, sharing what we believe and listening to what they believe).

There are times when it is good to sit down and listen to what others think. It can jog our own thinking, make us weigh our own beliefs, and sharpen our own apologetic skills. However, there are times when we must stand up and proclaim the truth, no matter what the outcome. Interfaith dialogue should be viewed as an evangelistic tool, just like any other. It is can be an opportunity to join hands with others who share certain core moral beliefs—human rights, compassion ministries, and so forth—to right some of the wrongs on the planet. Interfaith dialogue can lead to diplomacy which ends wars. We shouldn’t shirk from speaking respectfully and peacefully with the preachers and theologians of other faiths, sharing our thoughts and listening to theirs in equal measure. Although we still believe Christianity holds the truth, we must respect other people and their right to believe what they choose.

In the end, there’s probably no thornier issue facing Christians today than the prospect of a global government. Should we have one, or not? Will it be the spark of global Christian persecution? or will it spell the end of persecution, war and terrorism for everyone?

As long as there are diplomatic relationships between nations, there will be some form of global system that at the very least deals with international responses to war, humanitarian crises, disease, and economic trade. The more organized these systems become, the more advantages there will be worldwide for travel, tourism, human rights work, community development, and communications. Further, such a system, with the appropriate checks and balances, is a good deterrent to a world empire.

There are inherent dangers in global government. Any world system formed by man, no matter how lofty the motive, is inevitably going to be flawed because of sin. It doesn’t take an Antichrist to be greedy, selfish, or desire power over others. This is one reason why Christian men and women ought to be involved in the evolution of world government—to help guard it, as much as possible, from going down the wrong path. In spite of the dangers, there are several good things that have come out of the UN.

One classic example is the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2 says everyone is entitled to all the rights set out in the Declaration, regardless of “race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, …” Article 18 says everyone has the right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Thus the UN (and all its member states) say it is a fundamental violation of human rights according to internationally-accepted standards to persecute based on religion. This is one basis for getting governments involved in the fight against religious persecution.

We all know that the end is coming. Likewise, we all know that we must work ‘while it is day… for night comes, when no man can work.’ Instead of spending inordinate amounts of time analyzing the future, examining prophecy, and railing against technological advances that might bring the Antichrist to power, we ought to be spending our time focused on how we might use the advances of our time to further the Gospel. We must remember that only ‘when the Gospel is preached to all the nations… will the end come.’