We all have a longing for a perfect world. And, ironically, attempts to bring it to pass, here and now, by the power of mere men, have led to some of the worst disasters ever inflicted upon mankind: the French Revolution, Communism and all its ills, countless cults, and even religious zealots like Cromwell. (I see this trait even in myself, sometimes longing for a simpler time, or a (fictional) closer community. But real small towns aren't like that, of course.)

Most theists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are somewhat insulated against the effects of this pull by their understanding that life often is suffering, that evil is destined to win here for quite a while, and that a perfect world is not available here and now.

(For example, as a Christian, I am told by Jesus that his kingdom is "not of this world." And that it will be ushered in by his dramatic "return" in the clouds, on God's timing -- not in response to some magical action on my part, or my support for any political party or policies.)

This is why conservative Jews and Christians (and some strains of Islam) are not typically drawn to utopian visions. We see our job here as incremental improvement -- evolution, not revolution. We're here to improve our immediate sphere of influence -- not rework human nature or take over the world political system. We realize there certain limits on what we can expect to achieve, at least in the short term.

But if you examine the people who are drawn to utopian visions and policies, in this place and time, you'll soon discover that they are overwhelmingly either (a) secular, or (b) liberal Christian or Jewish.

Why? Because the human being longs for paradise, and these traditions do not allow it to reside in the afterlife, or a distant God-ordained future. This is the reason that secular or liberal religious biblical interpretations go hand-in-hand with radical leftist politics. A failure to believe the power of religion to deliver paradise causes people to seek it through politics.

Which is, ironically, what the left incessantly accuses the right of doing.

Reclaiming the Rapture?

Recently, I've been looking around at "Street Prophets" a Daily Kos blog which Markos describes as "working out a new and affirming vision of a religious left that respects secular government and the separation of church and state." [1] Please note that final phrase, it'll be relevant in just a moment.

Meanwhile, let's take a look at an article entitled "Reclaiming the Rapture":

I just finished J.D.Crossan's book God and Empire, and it has a fascinating section on the Rapture... The word and concept "Rapture" appears nowhere in the Bible .... in the time of Jesus, the parousia (what people call the Rapture) was not understood as a time when God would come down, take up those who were faithful to meet at the gates, and spirit them away. Rather, it was understood as an event where people go out and meet someone at the gate, and bring them back (eis apantesin) into their homes. Nowhere would it be understood as a time when the dignitary would take people with him/her.

And what does the author think this implies?

The Left Behind series has it wrong...the earth will not be destroyed and replaced by heaven. The Kingdom of God is here on earth, and even the so-called Rapture is focused on returning to the redeemed earth, not displacing it with Heaven. Everything we do in this world to make it reflect the Kingdom is not for naught, but is preparing the world (eis apantesin) for the coming of Christ. [bold mine]

Did you get that? By doing the right political things, we are "preparing" the earth for Jesus's return. There will be continuity, not a discontinuity between things as they are now and Kingdom of God. The earth is to be redeemed before the return of Jesus, not by the return of Jesus; Jesus is depicted as "returning to the redeemed earth."

His commenters seem to have the same impression:

I am so sick of a theology entirely contrary to the beliefs/hopes of Jesus' ancient Israel ("your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in Heaven"), the conflation of the terms "earth" (ga) and "world" (Kosmos, also meaning worldly government) to mean that Jesus wanted the earth destroyed... a faith now transmogrified into a bunch of people who celebrate war and believe they should blow up the planet and cheerfully look forward to eternity as a landless hateful gas somewhere in the unknown stratosphere...

God's kingdom here on earth, brought about by own political efforts, not in some air-fairy faraway land. In a word, utopia.

Unpacking

Actually, I don't disagree with the statement of theology above -- though being unfamiliar with the Left Behind novels, I suspect they're wrongly claiming LaHaye says the earth will be "destroyed" at the second coming. But the biblical picture is (as best I can see it) that Jesus comes back and sets up his kingdom on this earth -- and I don't know a single theologically conservative Christian who says otherwise. (So this sounds like a bit of a straw man argument, but perhaps I'm wrong.)

This doesn't mean there isn't a heaven elsewhere also: earth doesn't last forever, not even in the bible.

But the deception is in the part where the author says we can politically "prepare" the world for Jesus's arrival. To the contrary, the New Testament teaches, time after time, that Jesus would arrive at a world quite unprepared for his arrival, filled with people who did not actually believe in him:

Jesus: "... you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." (Matthew 24:9-13)

Paul: "But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power." (2 Tim 3:1-5)

Jesus: "... when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)

This is a picture of planet in which most people have embraced a false system of religion, which sounds godly, but ultimately has no spiritual power -- and in which the actual followers of Jesus are not praised as good leaders, environmentalists, etc. -- but in fact are among those "hated by all nations."

So this idea that Christians and other people will usher in the kingdom of God on earth has little to no biblical support: Yes, Jesus establishes his kingdom on earth. But no, the residents of earth at that time -- particularly those in power -- won't be very happy about it. The picture in the Revelation of John is that they will have embraced a religion which seems Christian and promised an earthly paradise: God's government, apparently, on earth -- with no cataclysmic return-of-Jesus-in-clouds.

Conclusion

My point here isn't to draw parallels (however tempting) between biblical prophecy and emerging trends. Nor I am here to convince you any of it is true -- that's utterly irrelevant to my intentions here.

My point is simply that most conservative Christians, like myself, rightly or wrongly, are not utopians. Since we believe that Jesus arrives at an earth where he is unwelcomed we cannot reasonably imagine we will usher in his return -- much less a paradise on earth -- by taking control of the government and forcing the world to submit to the will of God.

On the other hand, "liberal Christians" (apparently J.D. Crossan and some Kos readers, in this case) do commonly embrace and promulgate a theology in which our political efforts can lead seamlessly into the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Indeed, that is the point of much liberal rhetoric about injustice, inequality, and greed -- things I feel we cannot reasonably prevent right now.

And, again, that's somewhat understandable, since they view the bible as not necessarily God-inspired, as offering no reliable promise of justice beyond this clearly-unjust world. But it's also a historically dangerous position to embrace.

I just want people to understand, and be clear about the difference.