Rev. 21:1-7; 1 Thess 4:13-18; Matt 24:4-14; Isa 65:17-25

When I was in my teen years and well into my twenties, I attended and took part in a church that was… well, I guess the word would be “obsessed” with the end times. For many in these kinds of churches, including the ministers, society was to be read through an apocalyptic lens—everything was a sign and a portent of something big and terrible to come. Many of the people in these churches fueled this by an intense reading of the popular “Left Behind” series by Tim La Haye. This series describes an epic conflict between spiritual forces of good and evil and people being snatched from the earth, while those remaining having to make do without many of their friends and family in a world that has changed. For many people in the church that I attended, these books were an addition to the Bible—another canon from which to draw doctrine, much like our Roman Catholic friends draw from their deuterocanonical books. For them, they meaningfully translated a theological concept into practical action steps. How can I live when the “rapture” is right around the corner? One of these days I’ll go and I’ll be snatched up in the air, taken off to heaven, and none will be the wiser about my whereabouts.

I have to say that there was something attractive about this teaching. If this teaching were true, in the manner in which I learned it—really imbibed it like a firehose—it meant that I was part of the “in-group.” When God came back to smite the wicked and to dole out justice and destroy the earth as we know it, I would be saved, I would be caught off to heaven, and I would get to enjoy paradise while those left behind had an entirely different, and perhaps warmer experience, if you catch my drift.. And for many in the church, this was a feather in their theological cap, a sign of their chosen status, a sign to be used to aid in one’s spiritual life and in their witness to others who had yet to come to faith. This was more than the classic “turn or burn” gospel, where if you don’t believe, you’re going to hell. This was “do you really want to stay and suffer for that kind of thing?” A subtle variation, if you will.

When you were an outcast in school and in other groups for reasons of being a little different, for being an academic, for being not popular by many standards, this kind of theology does wonders for the self-image, the self-concept, and for self-esteem. Therefore, many folks who teach the prosperity gospel, if you trust God, God will bless you financially besides spiritually, often hold to this theology about the end times. They often go hand in hand. Being blessed in the life and escaping the world before it blows up is the best of both worlds.

Now, do not hear me say that this theology is necessarily in error, that this theology is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. To be clear, I do not subscribe personally to a view of the rapture that involves people getting snatched off to heaven to avoid pain and strife. And, let me say this also: if you hold to such a view, I commend you. It is well within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy to believe such a doctrine. If you examine certain scriptures, such as those we read this morning, there is some evidence that supports the rapture perspective, and valid arguments can be made in favor of this teaching. However, I do not believe the case is nearly as strong as some proponents assert it to be. Another thing to keep in mind is the relative age of any Christian teaching. Did you know that was even a thing? The Christian faith has grown, developed, and “added” to our understanding of God, the world, humans, and the relationships of all things. For instance, that God exists as Trinity Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has its origins in the Bible itself, but was later fleshed out in about AD 300 and was codified in the very first major church meeting at which the Roman Emperor himself got involved to help plan and shape the publication of doctrine that would become our version of Christian orthodoxy or right belief the whole way through today. So the doctrine of the Trinity, 1700-1800 years old, is quite solid in our history. It has precedent and has stood the test of time of generations of questions, prayer, and study. So we need to ask, what about this belief that the end times are quite near, that we will be snatched away before, during, or after the Great Tribulation? When I was a member of a denomination to which this was one of the central beliefs, we often talked about the different options for when this rapture would take place. But then when I got to study the passages in Bible College and then at seminary, I realized that, to be frank, I was reading the passage wrong. And we’ll talk about that a little later. But to the point, this whole idea of being snatched off of the earth and then taken away so that we can avoid the pain and hardship that is coming for the rest of the world that goes back to one man, John Nelson Darby. And he lived in the 1800s. So, like some of the other teachings, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, they all grew up at the same time. This whole idea of a rapture/tribulation kind of complex to which believers can escape, or barely escape, or slightly suffer, depending on one’s view, is not even as old as our country, not even as old as telegraph technology. And it grew out of a very specific culture and time period where many well-to-do people were repulsed and offended by the poorer neighbors who did all the labor and suffered so they—the well-to-do—could live in comfort. And those well-off did not want to have to acknowledge or even look at the suffering they themselves were causing.

Now, do not hear me say that this theology is necessarily in error, that this theology is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. To be clear, I do not subscribe personally to a view of the rapture that involves people getting snatched off to heaven to avoid pain and strife. And, let me say this also: if you hold to such a view, I commend you. It is well within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy to believe such a doctrine.

If you examine certain scriptures, such as those we read this morning, there is some evidence that supports the rapture perspective. Valid arguments can be made in favor of this teaching. However, I do not believe the case is nearly as strong as some proponents assert it to be.

Another thing to keep in mind is the relative age of any Christian teaching. Did you know that was even a thing? The Christian faith has grown, developed, and “added” to our understanding of God, the world, humans, and relationships. For instance, that God exists as Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—has its origins in the Bible itself. But it was further articulated around 300 AD and codified in the very first major church meeting. The Roman Emperor himself got involved in helping plan and shape the doctrine that would become our version of Christian orthodoxy, or right belief, all the way through the present.

So, the doctrine of the Trinity, being 1700-1800 years old, is quite solid in our history. It has precedent and has stood the test of time, through generations of questions, prayer, and study. So we need to ask: what about this belief that the end times are quite near, and that we will be snatched away before, during, or after the Great Tribulation?

When I was a member of a denomination where this was a central belief, we often discussed the different options for when this rapture would take place. But when I studied the passages in Bible College and then at seminary, I realized that, to be frank, I was reading the passage wrong. And we’ll talk about that a little later.

But now to the point, this whole idea of being snatched off the earth and taken away to avoid the coming pain and hardship traces back to one man: John Nelson Darby. He lived in the 1800s. And, like some of the other teachings from that era, for instance, those of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—they all grew up at the same time. This idea of a rapture/tribulation complex, where believers can escape or barely escape or slightly suffer, depending on one’s view, is not even as old as our country. It’s not even as old as telegraph technology.

This idea grew out of a very specific culture and time period. Their poorer neighbors repulsed and offended many well-to-do people. These poorer neighbors did all the labor and suffered so that the well-to-do could live in comfort. Those well-off did not want to acknowledge or even look at the suffering they themselves were causing.

Now, again, because this teaching is relatively new, that does not automatically mean that it is wrong on the face. But one test of whether a doctrine of Christianity is to be accepted is the relative age of that teaching. How long has the Church been wrestling with this issue? How long have scholars been looking at the scriptures and trying to make sense of a particular doctrine?

I think by now you might figure out that I’suspect this teaching because of how it has been wielded as a club against nonbelievers in particular, but even at believers who do not share in a common view of the end times.. I believe that to read certain passages, including some that I’ve used today, in a way that points to an escape from reality, of a separation line of an us-them binary, is to not handle these scriptures in the best way. An interpretation that leads away to build up love of not only our neighbors, but the very world that God loved, so that he gave Jesus, is likely on the wrong track.

My point, for being so blunt about my understanding of the end times, is that this theology, that developed by John Nelson Darby and then later by a certain branch of Protestant Christianity, often known as Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism also, both legitimate titles, both different strands within a more conservative theological tradition, well these groups have as one of the central planks in their theological platform a suspicion of the material world. The material world of sense, perception, eating, drinking, making love, and all of those things that we enjoy with the body are, as I think we would all agree, one of the easier ways to succumb to temptation. The drives of our natural body are quite strong and can lead us to do some things that we had not expected possible. This is all true regardless of what position you hold concerning the end times. But, because of the historical era in which this teaching had grown, namely the Victorian era, in England, where this was developed first, this is an English theology, not an American one, the whole idea of purity, chastity, frugality, and all the self-deprecating, self-limiting behaviors that go along with it, led to a belief that to be in the body is to be in sin without ever having to have a conscious action. That to be embodied, to be enfleshed, is not the ideal. And, that it would be better when we are in heaven to be bodiless souls floating around in the ether, because then we will have been free from what St. Paul calls “the flesh”. I am sure many of you, depending on your age is, have encountered this teaching, perhaps even in this very building, because until the 70s and 80s, this was a predominant view among Protestants throughout the United States. Whether one was “a liberal”, “a conservative”, “a progressive”, “a traditionalist”, whatever label one wants to put, this just was a common belief that was just accepted, on very little evidence, to be true and factual.

This teaching, which first started in England, spread like wildfire throughout the world. And today, in typically more conservative Bible churches, Bible fellowship churches, the assemblies of God, those institutions that highlight personal purity and individualism in our understanding of salvation and church life often adhere to this view. It is part of a package that emphasizes individual conversion, individual relationship with God, and an individual departure from earth at some future date if we are lucky, to avoid the worst that God is going to bring upon the world. The dawning of the lake of fire, the brimstone, the hail, the plagues, the locusts, all the things that God, supposedly, is going to bring about at the end that we would not want to experience, or, for that matter, would not even want our worst enemy to experience.

Again, if you hold on to this belief or are sympathetic to it, please note that I still consider you my friend, colleague, fellow Christian, family, all of those things. A belief in one or the other doctrine certainly does not need to distance believers one from another, and it does not have to destroy friendships, even marriages and other relationships. But too often, our personal identity and our self-worth gets tied up with our belief system, and the more elaborate that belief system is, think of those that have charts and graphs and draw dotted lines between Bible passages, looking for a code somewhere that gives them names, dates, times. When those predictions, those interpretations prove to be false, like everyone who has predicted the end of time and the coming of Jesus Christ again, has failed, including the Mormons, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Branch Davidians, all the people that have claimed that Jesus is coming have been wrong, the result is often digging in the heels deeper, and refusing to discuss what happens now. What about love, and life, and faith, and what about us?

Well, so far I have been speaking a lot about what I am against and theology that I do not agree with. And, to my recollection, I have never spoken out so publicly on something that I believe—and something I very much do not believe. My goal as a pastor is not to convince you that the way I personally see any doctrine of Christianity is to be preferred, and that if you do not agree with me, then somehow you are wrong or outside the faith. Trust me, I have been on the receiving end of such treatment by several pastors in my history, including the one who insisted that I must believe in the rapture to be saved. Well, I don’t, so apparently I was outside the faith. Well, enough about that. What I am really trying to say is, maybe it is time we focus on motives. Let’s talk about what needs this doctrine fills in the hearts, minds, and souls of those who hold it.

So far, we have explored the historical and theological contexts of certain Christian teachings, particularly the doctrine of the rapture. We have discussed how this relatively modern belief emerged in the 1800s and its cultural implications, contrasting it with older, more established doctrines like the Trinity. I do not intend to alienate or condemn those who hold a rapture-centric view of the end times, but to invite a thoughtful dialogue about its implications.

I understand that many of you hold this belief dearly, and it is not my place to judge your faith or devotion. Rather, my vehement opposition to this teaching stems from the harm it can cause, as I have seen firsthand how it can affect individuals and families, particularly in times of suffering. For instance, when my father was dying of cancer, the emphasis on escaping to a better afterlife offered neither comfort nor hope. It felt more like an avoidance of the present reality and its challenges.

Therefore, my goal is to foster a conversation that respects differing viewpoints while encouraging a more grounded and hopeful interpretation of our faith. By acknowledging our shared human experiences and spiritual journeys, we can find common ground and deepen our understanding of what it means to live out our faith meaningfully.

There is an excellent relationship expert by the name of Marshall Rosenberg. He and the church Angela formerly attended, as part of a conflict resolution season in their life, used a series of tools that go by the name of “nonviolent communication.” The goal of nonviolent communication is to avoid speech, the use of words, in ways that anger and trigger people to increase their own defensiveness, self-justification, and escalate the intensity of the conflict in which they are involved. Avoiding trigger words, avoiding should and would and ought statements are ways we can avoid conflict. But one of the key insights that I got from Dr. Rosenberg was that people have needs, and obviously that’s not the major insight, but that people really desire to share their needs with other people. It’s often the conventional wisdom, and this is basically sexism in reverse, to think that men are quiet about their needs. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Men communicate their needs, but most of us have been socialized to communicate our physical needs. That’s not to say that men don’t have relational, spiritual, and other needs. We absolutely do. It just so happens that in our culture, to express such needs is often considered a sign of weakness, or a sign of being something other than masculine. The two go hand in hand.

And so our belief about the ultimate destiny of humanity, of our individual souls, and most importantly, the souls of those who don’t look, act, think, believe, vote, whatever else, those that are other than us in our own mind, the fate of those people, says a great deal about the veracity or lack thereof of our faith, of our integrity, and of the soundness of our doctrine. I’ll be blunt. It has been a trend in the American church for about 200 years to want to flee from the world as it is. Many people view the world as without hope and condemned to fire anyway, so why work to fix it? Let us focus on what will last our immaterial souls, and let the world burn out.. Many people view the world, encouraged by some Bible teachers who selectively use verses, to believe that this earth is a wasteland, something of a practice field for the life of heaven, which is to come. Some believe that this earth is beyond redemption, and that salvation is a spiritual state in which we will fly away from the earth, in which we will go to a disembodied heaven, where our physical passions will no longer rule over us, because we are out of the body. And, as Paul says, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Again, I’ll say it for the third time, if you hold to some sort of variation of this teaching, you can still be my friend. We will still call each other brother or sister. But I cannot go down that doctrinal road with you, because I have seen the damage it has caused to those who suffer in this life. Here’s an example. A person is dying of cancer. They are in pain 24/7, as the cancer metastasizes throughout their body, putting on natural growths in various places: their spine, the legs, the lungs, the brain. They are encouraged by their church family to hope for the day when they will pass away, because the suffering will be gone, and they will be perfected in an instant, as this body, which is but a husk of the perfect that is to come, is shed like a snake sheds skin. This did incredible harm to the family of that individual. And that family was my family. Because my father was dying of lung cancer, and the cancer spread and the pain increased, he was told that it would be better if he was dead, in no uncertain terms, by his pastor, by his elders of the church. And that was to comfort him in his last days. It did not, nor could it, because it was not gospel. It was not hope. It was merely an escape from facing reality as it existed. It was running away from a problem. There was no solution but to quit. And when many people look out at this world, they see a world that is beyond redemption. They see a world that is corrupt, destitute of morals, going to hell in a handbasket, if you will, and they don’t want to go down the road with it, so they would like to jump ship. And so this teaching about a rapture, and an escape into the great beyond, to be snatched up physically, and to be translated somehow to get rid of this body, appeals to the morals that have been instilled in them. Paul says, “Who will rid me of this body of death?” And yet, Paul never says, “I wish to be free of this life.” As a matter of fact, Paul presses on, amid persecution, and beatings, and illness, to remain. Yes, he says it was far better to be with God, but he remains.

Have you noticed how many times I use individual pronouns to speak about those who hold on to this belief? This belief caters to the ethos of our age. In this age of modernism, philosophically and culturally, and increasingly post-modernism, philosophically mostly, we are living in the age of the individual. Remember, last week we talked about the difference between societies that prioritize the group first and societies that privilege the individual in terms of rights, liberty, dignity, and personhood. And we realized that ancient Israel, and to a large extent the Greco-Roman world, were not societies of individuals first, but of groups, clans, tribes, nations. That the identity of the group was far stronger than the individual identity. And while individual identity mattered, it did not communicate destiny in how we believe it does today. In the West, particularly in the United States, founded as it was on enlightenment principles of people like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, building on the philosophy of Kant and Hegel and all the people that had gone before them, the emphasis on liberty has translated itself into an emphasis on escapism, to escape from those things that make society less than desirable, that makes the world less than livable, that makes life less than tolerable. Thus, many who hold to a view of the end times that is violently apocalyptic, in which conflagration and terror strike the land tend to wax sulphurously when they speak about the destiny of non-believers, and those who have yet to hear the good news AS good news.

But if we understand the story of the Bible, the narrative, the tale that it tells from beginning to end, noticing that the main characters in the Bible are God and the humans created in that God’s image. It provides us with some safeguards against some teachings that can be harmful. The Bible is not a get-rich-quick scheme, though there are those out there that say if you believe, you will be blessed, materially, financially, besides spiritually. Reading through the lens of story, though, you don’t find that many rich believers, do you? So that lens of story provides you a guardrail or two against going down a road that may lead you and your family to harm. The same applies to teachings about things like marriage and divorce, family matters, raising children, any of the issues that face our lives. That lens of story gives us some insight into how to read this book, because yes, it is a discrete collection, an anthology, if you will, but for all its disparate parts and writers and the time that it spans, which is well over three millennia or more, it tells one compelling story about a human family and the human that enters that story to set it right, to take the family that was headed down a road that led to its own self-destruction, that worked against its own interests, to turn it back towards its original intention, to turn it back towards love, towards peace, towards gentleness, towards generosity, towards self-sacrificial giving, towards working for the common good instead of the individual good. I know I will have left many of you unsatisfied because I’m just getting started, and I may have offended some of you by speaking out so vehemently against the teaching you hold dear. I understand that, and I invite you to speak to me if you feel the need, but I encourage you to listen until next week. As I tell you the story of the end from the Bible’s perspective, not as some preview of a new story to come, but as the fulfillment of the story that is, listen, pray, think, discern, use the God-given wisdom you have, and I’ll see you next week.