Tue 13 Jun 2006
My posting has been so sparse of late that I feel as though I need to apologize to those readers of The Lord of the Kingdom – both of you – that click by to see if I’ve gotten around to anything new. I don’t think my dearth of writing is due to the well being dry but rather to my wondering if I drink from the same well as most Christians in the cyberchurch. I’m having the same struggle at Eternal Perspectives.
Hear my confession (Part Uno): I get bored – quickly – with vast majority of the so-called discussions that take place online. Take, for example, the current skirmish that could erupt into a genuine massacre at any time. (I say “massacre” not because one side is going to so devastate the other, but because it will be yet another instance of the Name of Christ being sullied as two or more bloggers attempt to tear theological limb from theological limb from one another. Shades of the Black K-nig-it. Not a great testimony to either the love or unity to which we are commanded.)
The simmering feud to which I’m referring, of course, is the “Name-that-Beast of the Week in Revelation” between Tim Challies, Joe Carter, Andy Jackson, and the sometimes-incindiary posts of John Schroeder. Tim says the Roman Church “seems to be,” “might be,” “could be” the Beast, or, uh, antichrist, I mean some metaphorical being from John’s final writings, while Andy says, “no way.” Joe takes Tim to task for being illogical in his post and John faults Tim specifically and generally for hedging his statements behind statements with plausible deniability. iMonk comments that he’s in favor of people saying what they mean and meaning what they say, i.e., speaking dogmatically and not tiptoeing around. This is not surprising coming from Michael, who is anything but hypocritical in this regard and could be the poster boy for straight talking – even if sometimes his message might be a tad bent. Like mine. And yours.
Regardless, I find all of this tediously boring and an utter waste of time and talent. Is this what Paul meant when he told us that we should be “making the most of your time, because the days are evil”? I seriously doubt it.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that I have been able to accurately identify the Beast of Revelation. After years to exegetical, historical, and theological work – and also reading the Gnostic gospels and even The Da Vinci Code – I determine that the Beast of Revelation is Alec Baldwin, erstwhile actor and expert on everything.
(Now, I could have picked Ann Coulter except (a) the Beast seems to be male and, unless I need new glasses, there’s not much about Ann that looks masculine, and (b) I like Ann a lot more than I like Alec.
I’m also confident that some of you have noticed that I put Alec on the right and Ann on the left: this is what’s known as irony in my own sardonic, iconoclastic mind.)
At any rate, so I determine beyond any doubt that the Beast of Revelation is Alec Baldwin – and maybe even that Ann Coulter is the whore of Babylon. Now what? What do I, as a Christian, do about this amazing discovery? First, of course, being pretribulational in my theology, I have to make some changes to my eschatology. Nothing too earth-shattering about that. I also might have to change my feelings about Ann but, again, it’s not like we exchange Christmas cards or she has me on speed dial.
So what’s the point? Knowing the identity of the Beast or whore doesn’t change my life one bit: I’m no more responsible now than previously to love people, share the gospel, care for the poor and needy, be a faithful steward of creation, and live a holy life. The only benefit, as far as I can tell, is that I have ruled out myself as either the Beast or the whore, along with a lot of others. I suppose I’m freed from having to love Alec or Ann, but – and this is a horrible confession (Part Dos) I am about to make – I really don’t pray for either one of them anyway.
That may make me a horrible Christian but, thanks to my discovery, it doesn’t make me the Beast or the whore.
Whew!
So I languish in my thoughts about whether or not to spend my time trying to talk sense into people who know more than they understand or need to establish an identity by being contrary. I’m not sure that is the wisest investment of my time or a practice of “making the most of” my time during these evil days.
Thus, posting may continue to be sparse. When I do write something, however, I hope it will be something of a reality check for those of you who do read. One of my missions, as described in the header of Eternal Perspectives, is “searching for sanity in a Christian culture gone mad.”
When the patients are running the psych ward, it’s not easy.
Related Tags: Catholic, Beast, Antichrist, Revelation
Namárië.
Beautiful post, Mike. This gets back to my own eschatological position: We — all mankind — are the anti-Christ. Our sin nailed Christ the cross, and it is the Spirit of the anti-Christ that Christ’s divinity is denied.
People seem to think Revelations is a book that requires deciphering. I believe Revelations was written so the simple can understand. The number of the beast is 6 — the number of man. God’s own harshest words were spoken to the seven churches who operated outside of God’s commands, seemingly out of sync with the Holy Spirit, because of selfishness and pettiness and greed (among many other damning charges).
Hello? I’m no champion expositor, but I fail to see how much farther we need to take interpreting the book of Revelations. I’ve seen the enemy and it is us.
I say this with reservation of a high view of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not have one, but I fail to see where we should be at war with the RCC short of anything that might keep someone from a living faith in Christ.
God bless, bro!
Matt
I think all the stir over the Beast and such is a waste of time, too. It has had one good result, though: Mike Russell posted again today Peace.
Eschatalogy can be tedious mostly because no one agrees. The Lord Jesus is the All in All. Focus on that and you may be able to shake off the tedium of Gospel boredom.