I see The Rapture as dangerous nonsense.

When I a boy The Rapture was seen as just nonsense by all the religious folk I knew. My minister, his curate, my Sunday school teacher and my mom all agreed: nonsense. Today belief in The Rapture has grown to the point that belief in it has even infected my friends and co-workers. It may have even touched my family.

Recently, a nephew posted a link on Facebook to a book by N.T. Wright and Michael Bird: Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies. The title is a bit of a mouthful but if I understand correctly, Wright and Bird think The Rapture is not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense.

I read that Michael Bird has posted warnings about Donald Trump. Good for Bird! I understand that Bird been very critical of Donald Trump, particularly when it comes to his influence on evangelicals. Bird points to a complex relationship between evangelicalism and Trump, a relationship in which a surprisingly large number of evangelicals supported Trump.

One source found by an AI search engine reported: "Bird has analyzed why a large percentage of white evangelicals voted for Trump despite doubts about his faith and character. He suggests that this support may stem from a desire for political power and influence rather than genuine alignment with Christian values. He points out that Trump's behaviour and statements often contradict traditional evangelical beliefs, raising questions about the authenticity of his faith."

The following expresses my position better than I could ever could: Bird expresses concern about the implications of supporting leaders like Trump who exhibit authoritarian tendencies. He agrees with N.T. Wright in arguing that Christians should actively oppose totalitarianism and work towards sustaining liberal democratic values, emphasizing that true Christian witness involves promoting justice and mercy in society rather than aligning with political figures based solely on their stance on specific issues like abortion.

So, just who are these two authors? I found the following on the Christian Book website: 

N. T. Wright is the former bishop of Durham and senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. He is one of the world's leading New Testament scholars and the award-winning author of many books, including?After You Believe, Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, Interpreting Paul, and The New Testament in Its World, as well as the Christian Origins and the Question of God series.

Michael F. Bird is Deputy Principal and Lecturer in New Testament at Ridley College,?Australia. He is the author of numerous scholarly and popular books on the New Testament and theology, including, with N. T. Wright, The New Testament in Its World (2019).

I don't agree with every position that these two take. But, when it comes to The Rapture and Donald Trump and a lot of other evangelical concerns so dominant today, I must say that I find Wright and Bird dead on.

Christianity, as I knew it, is under attack more than ever before

I was born an Anglican. Before I was one year old, I was baptized. As a young boy, while my parents were in church, I was in Sunday school. I liked my church. I liked my Sunday school teacher, a local lawyer, and all around good guy. I liked the church curate -- a newly ordained young minister serving under the guidance of the church priest, who himself was another cool guy. I looked up to all three.

These three men all emphasized one should take a balance approach to the scriptures. The bible was a book worth knowing but I don't believe any one of them ever claimed the bible was the infallible word of God. If this seems like an odd idea to be discussing with a young boy, you are right, it was. So, why did the topic even come up?

My best friend at the time was a member of the Christian Missionary Alliance church. Although I did not often attend a Sunday service, there were mid-week services and special events that I frequently attended. The CMA was, and still is today, an evangelical church. Some of the ideas expressed there were vigorously opposed by the leaders of my church, the Anglican church.

At one special event, I learned I was living in the End Times. With lots of references to bible passages, the speaker built an airtight case for his claim. It can be worrying enough for a young child to learn that the world, as he knows it, is soon coming to an end, but to also learn that he was not saved just made it much harder to bare. He was following a false religion, he was told. He was in grave danger of eternal damnation.

The end times brouhaha was non-sense, a misreading of the bible my Anglican clergy friends and my Sunday school teacher all agreed. It simply was not going to happen: not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Relax. I had to decide which take on the scriptures I was going to believe. I decided to go with the Anglican one. It simply seemed more reasonable.

My Anglican mentors clearly thought I was flirting with some dangerous ideas but I was young and there was going to be lots of time to iron all this out. My Christian Missionary Alliance friends thought I was playing with fire, Hell fire. The end was nigh and I had to make the right decision and make it now. 

I did. As I said, I sided with the Anglican viewpoint. The end times is bunkum. It just wasn't going to happen. Here it is some 70 years later and discussions about the end times are still being bandied about. Dozens of leaders in the evangelical movement have come and gone, many are now dead, and their take on the "infallible word of God" has proven to be very fallible.

Is this being Christian?

I have good friends and close relatives who, when I was a boy, would not have been considered truly Christian. 70 years ago, they would have been outliers. Fanatics. Not today. Today, they are becoming mainstream and they are moving the stream to the right, very far to right.

Religion permeates everything in their lives and I do mean everything. For instance, my relative told me, "As a Christian, I seek out other Christians . . . " And then continued, "CBC seems skewed to uphold a liberal perspective and criticize the conservative view." Clearly, to her, the CBC is neither conservative nor Christian.

I take umbrage at today's use of the "conservative" moniker to describe right-wing individuals who adopt extreme positions, such as opposing vaccinations. I feel this totally misrepresents conservatism as I knew it some 70 years ago. 

Back then, I would have thought a belief in the value of universal vaccinations was a very conservative stance. A conservative person would never have taken an extreme, anti-science position and argued against vaccinations for children and others. In the early '50s the fight against diphtheria was just gaining momentum. The mortality rate for diphtheria was usually from 5% to 10% but in some cases it could be much higher. And it was a frighteningly hellish death.To be an antivaxxer back then would have labelled one as an idiot and not as a Christian.

A Pew Research Center survey from 2017 noted that over 20% of white evangelicals believed parents should have the right to decide against vaccinating their children, even if it poses health risks to others. Endangering your neighbours and your children is not Christian and how such a position could be described as conservative seems just wrong.

The rise in vaccine hesitancy among conservative groups is linked to political rhetoric and misinformation, some of it generated by certain evangelicals themselves. These trouble-making liars would not have been allowed to spread their stupidity in the church I attended as a boy. My Jesus was a bright fellow. A trustworthy chap. A man you could count on. And children could have counted on him to do the right thing, he would have had any children in his care vaccinated.

Valentina Gomez: Quote Without Comment

 

..............