Osler's Razor

Check out "The Rapture and the Antichrist" by Russell Standish, which discusses the role of the Niagara Bible Conferences (1878-1909) and the "Scofield Reference Bible" (1896), which was sold by the millions to evangelical Protestants. As is the case with most debates over Christian ideology, the pre- and post-millennial viewpoints you mention are the product of changes in interpretations of the Scriptures (much like the current debates over what the framers of our Constitution "really" intended when they wrote it). Would Jesus "really" approve of not helping out the poor because he's on his way? Yet another excuse for evangelicals to behave poorly in the belief that they will be the first to ride his coat tails into Heaven. Knock yourselves out, guys.
 

As a Catholic and a history major, I find schism study to be fascinating...( if only to prove the rest of y'all wrong!! :) )

It's amazing how the world changes with an argument that obviously begins between two people. Others join the causes and settle in to the particular belief of their side. In the end we have hatred, wars, bigotry, persecution, etc. etc.

Doesn't that amaze you though?...that it begins with two people sitting around who end up disagreeing about the meaning of what someone wrote thousands of years ago??
 

In my mind, the biggest difference in post- and pre-millennial thinking is the aspect of human agency.

Most nineteenth century evangelicals were post-m, and they thought they could bring about a heavenly kingdom on earth by working toward ameliorating their world (sometimes called "perfectionism"). This may or may not have been theologically defensible, but it left a massive mark on society. And while you can see a lot of drawbacks to the fervor this responsibility would produce, you can also enumerate a whole host of positive developments that might happen if you believed you were really in charge of making your world a better place.

In fact, the "Holy Warriors" of their day played an important role in making the c. 19 an era of cultural and political reform (temperance, abolition, prison reform, mental health reform, etc.). When our pastor calls Christians "Kingdom People," he is speaking to that tradition. The American Progressive movement and Social Gospel theory were very much born of that tradition.

On the other hand, the pre-m tradition is more of the "Jesus is coming back, and boy is he going to be ticked." And I think of that as a movement predominately Southern and c. 20.

When I think about the debate among Christians as to whether they will be spared from the "Tribulation," I see that as an almost totally separate discussion within pre-millennialism (aka the post-trib, pre-trib debate).
 

One time at boarding school senior year I had this great friend Julie. This was in High School. She came from this pretty conservative town and her parents were really religious.

OK so One day on a weekend she bursts into my room with a huge pile of books, totally unrinary... She says "PLEASE Liz Hide these for me!!! I will get them from you later... I will explain later. Put them UNDER YOUR BED and do not let ANYONE see them! THANKS" and then she was gone.


I was like "Yeah whatever put a dead body under my bed if you want to, I don't care." I mean this girl was in a TOTAL panic.

Turns out - her MOM was VISITING right? and she was taking a Comparative Religions class.
She said that if her mom had seen these like other bibles or religious books in her room on her shelf? She would have totally freaked. Like those were like ALL THE WRONG KINDS of BIBLES.... She thanks me over and over for hiding her bad bibles or whatever.

WOW. I do NOT get it. Still don't.
 

Only pre- and post-? What about amillenialists and dominionists? Don't they get a say too? :)

Eschatology is one of my favorite subjects when it comes to religions and their mythologies. I don't know what it is, but I have a fascination with understanding how different folks think the world is going to come to an end.

In actuality, at least to this non-Christian, the debate doesn't seem silly. Particularly, I'm scared of dominion theology because there's nothing about that particular eschatology that I find "silly." Frightening to the extreme, yes, but silly, no.

Attempting to understand the Revelation is notoriously difficult. Myself, I find the Catholic interpretation to be the most plausible (so there's that for your team, Dallas ADA), but then again, I probably side with the Catholics/Orthodox on many issues of theology against the Protestants.
 

Revelation really is a coded text which enabled first Century CE Christians to communicate the greater Christian hope with the context of the Roman Empire.