Or at least, according to Tim Lahaye, there is no difference between me and a secular humanist. In an interview last week with Newsweek, Lahaye, co-author of the best-selling fiction series Left Behind (and I stress the word fiction), declared that those who don’t interpret prophecy as he does are “usually liberal theologians that don’t believe the Bible literally.” A couple paragraphs later he says “Part of the opposition to our position is from the secular humanists, but part of it is from the liberal people of theology that reject the Bible. I don’t see a great deal of difference between them. Their basic conclusions are often the same.”
See, I didn’t realize that the definition of a “liberal theologian” was “someone who disagrees with Lahaye’s brand of Eschatology”. Tim Lahaye has decided to draw a line in the sand at which you either agree with him on his interpretation of prophetic literature or you don’t believe the Bible at all, which is a drastic mischaracterization of the current evangelical landscape.
During the interview, Lahaye also said “We believe that the Bible should be understood literally whenever possible.” I agree with that. The problem is, for Lahaye to arrive at the position he holds, he has had to interpret the Bible literally where it doesn’t interpret itself literally.
Characterizing those who hold to different views of eschatology than his own as “liberal theologians that don’t believe the Bible literally” is naive at best. What’s worse is that there are millions of people (the Left Behind series has sold over 70 million copies) who believe Lahaye and don’t realize his interpretation has only been around for about 150 years.
Christianity Today has a write-up on the Newsweek interview here that’s worth a read.
LaHaye would, no doubt, characterize me as one of those ‘liberal theologians,’ though the designation is laughable. But, as you know, I find his claim that ‘believing the Bible literally’ is the hallmark of true faith completely maddening. This is not because I don’t think that the Bible should be taken literally where it is meant to be; it is because those who lobby as he does believe that nearly the entire Bible was written thus.
So I’ll disagree that the Bible should be taken literally whenever possible. As LaHaye and other fundamentalists have demonstrated, it can be taken literally almost always – whether or not it should be. It is much more meaningful to take the position that Scripture should be taken literally where it is appropriate. That leaves a lot more room for discussion, debate, and disagreement. And disagreement is fine! But the alternative is a hunt to continually find ways to make everything literal, when the true hunt should be to find the truth of Scripture however it is communicated.
I just came across this statement by W. Ward Gasque in a paper by Dr. J.I. Packer entitled “Evangelical Annihilationism in Review” (read it here).
The problem with the evangelicals who turn the Bible into a kind of crystal ball is that they show very little historical awareness. They speak assuredly about the signs that are being fulfilled “right before your very eyes” and point to the impending end. Lindsay confidently refers to our own as “the terminal generation.” However, these writers do not seem to be aware that there have been many believers in every generation—from the Montanists of the second century through Joachin of Fiore (c. 1135–1202) and Martin Luther to those Russian Mennonites who undertook a “Great Trek” to Siberia in 1880–84 and the nineteenth-century proponents of dispensationalism—who have believed that they were living in the days immediately preceding the second coming of Christ. So far they have all been mistaken. How many people have lost confidence in clear doctrines of Scripture affecting eternal life because misguided prophetic teaching is, unfortunately, not likely to be investigated.
Hey Stephen! How are you?
There must be some way to prove that LaHaye himself, is the ANTICHRIST. I am not the biggest fan of LaHanus. He is a good dime-store writer but as a spritual compass and guide, I’ll take Barney or Larry the Cucumber any day.
However, I did find the first book a good distraction at the Airport. Did it not seem like the words were awefully big on the page and that there appeared to be about half as many words per page as most normal books? I think that’s why I read the thing in about an hour.