This morning I had a conversation with one of my more conservative evangelical friends. We were talking about youth ministry, then we were talking about theology, then he brought up some questions about how people are saved. We talked a little longer before he brought up “the mark of the beast” (Revelation 13:18), an image which I think of as highly symbolic and historically specific, representing first century political circumstances (while of course still offering us a lens for understanding our current situation), specifically those surrounding or resembling Emperor Nero, if anyone, also known as Neron Caesar, a particularly oppressive figure even among the Caesars (for some good and accessible commentary on this see Bruce Metzger’s Breaking the Code, page 76-77). But of course my friend, being the good dispensationalist he is, sees it as a literal mark which will be placed on or in people who deny Christ in the “End Times,” making it possible for them to buy and sell goods. He was only asking about whether or not God will still save those who verbally and physically deny him while still believing in him in their hearts, which doesn’t have to be specifically an “end times” conversation, so I didn’t think it was necessary for me to reveal to him that I thought his eschatological perspective was a load of crap. He almost immediately brought up politics, “you know Obama wants to ‘chip’ people with a microchip…”
And that’s when I got to thinking…
Why do people believe in the literal “mark of the beast,” not to mention all the other problematic images in Revelation? Is it really because they read scripture and that was the most obvious interpretation (I’ll save questioning their hermeneutics for later)? Is it really only because that’s what’s been passed down to them (I’m sure this is often it!)? Or is it because it makes for very effective scare tactics?
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that dispensationalist literalism makes for very powerful conservative propaganda. I believe that this is part of the reason it is so alive and well in our world. While George W. Bush was in office, dispensationalism was used as propaganda for people to support war in Iraq and to give up on peace making in the middle east. Now that we have Barack Obama in office, it’s the mark of the beast language that scares people into looking negatively upon anything the president does or says. Whatever the situation, dispensationalism is good at twisting current events, no matter how horrific they are or how really good they really may be, and adapting itself so that everything is secret knowledge for the conservative dispensationalist. So the question is, do dispensationalists believe their outlandish interpretations because they’re being honest with the text or is it because it conveniently fits into their conservative bias and fear mongering? Is the literal and future mark of the beast expectation a reasonable interpretation or is it just a convenient scare tactic?
I am a Youth Pastor for a United Church of Christ congregation in Ramona, Ca. I am a graduate of Azusa Pacific University and am still a student of Theology, Youth Ministry, and Biblical Studies.
My blog is Living in the Kingdom at http://whateverisgood.blogspot.com/
Is it possible that it could be 'literal and future' and yet the idea of it be used for 'fear-mongering' today? Before we reduce each other's eschatology to 'a load of crap' maybe we need to consider that maybe we all have a piece of the puzzle or maybe we are all wrong.
I fully agree that much popular theology is a result more of cultural lenses than of scholarly Scriptural studies but I think this applies both to conservative and liberal sides of the fence. 'He who is without sin should throw the first stone' in a sense. I think we often weaponize our theological perspectives and then attempt to 'stone' those who stand in opposition to what we think. I do this all the time but fortunately I haven't blown anyone's head off yet.
Ideas have consequences, so I think there needs to be critical thinking and debate about what we believe, especially concerning 'the study of last things', because these believes shape our behavior now. But is it helpful to slap labels on each other and then draw lines in the sand? I've been wrestling with these questions a lot lately. And I've noticed a lot of folks with stones in their hands (including me).
-shalom!
J Fowler
(on Twitter: @wiselywoven)
Yes. We always have to be careful of stone throwing, and I think Wes would agree with that also.
Thanks for the comment!
I accept the criticism that I may be throwing stones but I hope I'm not. Yes, I still think dispensationalism is basically a “load of crap” and that it is only close to valid even on a good day. Harsh as that may be, I don't deny that rational thinkers and honest Christians still may come to that conclusion. I work on a daily basis with other Christians who are dispensationalists (like my friend in the post) and our theological differences don't divide us and we don't let them get in the way of our ministry together. So, though it might sound like I'm drawing lines in the sand, I don't tend to make enemies because of eschatology.