Left Behind (The Series)by Tim LaHaye & Jerry B. Jenkins.

[Sitaram]

One critic of Annie Proulx, "The Old Ace in the Hole" (I think), complained that what she wrote was journalism and doctrine thinly disguised as literature. It is my understanding that "Silas Marner" is the product of the author's study of various humanist philosophers (notably, her 1854 translation of Ludwig Feuerbach's "Essence of Christianity") and an attempt to explore, through plot and dialogue. When I first read Silas Marner, in eighth grade, I hardly suspected that there was any doctrine there.

Tolstoy has some overt essays embedded in his novels, which one may uncover by taking the text download, and doing a string search on "freewill".

Come to think of it, Steinbeck’s “East of Eden” is loaded with all sorts of Pelagian doctrine about free will choice and “timshol” or “timshel” as the human capacity to choose to resist evil, all placed in dialogue of the Chinese cook.

I have all of LaHaye's series in front of me, and I shall try to skim through and see if I find some overt, explicit doctrine, or whether it is all veiled as plot and dialogue.

As a curious aside, I was reading "Sons and Lovers" and found a marvelous dialogue in which a young man and woman discusses the verse about from the Gospels which states that "two sparrows are sold for a farthing, yet not one sparrow falls unnoticed." The young woman states that she used to believe that quite literally, but now, she is of the opinion that the entire race of sparrows is significant, but not the single individual. Certainly, such dialogue smacks of doctrinal interpretation.

Yet, one might say the same thing in the Iliad, where Glaukos and Diomedes pause upon the battlefield to exchange gifts and comment that the race of humans is like the leaves which fall with each season and are no more, but only the memorial remains of the noble and famous in the memories of their descendants.

Adn we shall not even mention 1984 and Animal Farm.

 

[abecedarian]

<I once asked her, out of curiosity:

"Suppose a Roman Catholic began to attend your services, and after a few months, requested to join your church. What would you do? Would you accept their Roman Catholic baptism, or would you re-baptize them."

She explained that since Catholics are not Christians, they would need to be baptized. But, she said, first, they must present several witnesses from the community, to testify that they are already living a moral life.

This attitude, of demanding the fruits of works as a proof of worthiness to be admitted to a church, is rather bizarre, but is commonly encountered. And yet, we see Jesus accepting dreadful sinners, harlots, etc., immediately upon their demonstration of repentance.

I think that one must examine the church and teachings of people like LaHaye to get a better understanding of the sophistry, if indeed there is sophistry and double talk. >


I would be curious to know the denomination of your friend. I know that my pastor(EFCA) would be more interested in making sure the Catholic is basing their salvation on trust in Christ alone, rather than mere Church membership. There are some very big doctrinal differences between most evangelical Protestant denominations and The Roman Catholic Church.

As for who gets 'raptured', I think the Bible makes it clear that those are believers, Christians who are alive when the even occurs. Of course there are lots of various schools of thought over the issue of IF and when it will happen..In my own local church, we have a couple of different ideas floating around as to when the rapture might occur. I think this is an area that is open to interpretation, and where we can agree to keep our minds open and see what happens.

A reminder needs to be made that 1st century Christians believed that the end was coming any second. They adhered to the belief that they should live each moment as though it might be their last. That's not a bad way to live when you think about it.

I think the main thing Lahaye and Jenkins wanted to happen was for their books to be used as tools to get believers and unbelievers alike to examine the scriptures and talk to one another about these things. If that's true, then they've achieved a measure of success.

 

[Peder]

Sitaram,
Thank you for what I take to be an extended answer to my question. I have no doubt your examples are well taken with respect to doctrine and/or beliefs and opinions being expressed in the cited works. In an effort to clarify my question for your further search, however, I hope it is clear that my interest was whether or not such expressions of doctrine were directed toward the reader, or were expressed by one character to another within in the work itself. I am fairly familiar with East of Eden and, as a guess, I would say that all the discussions you mention were between characters in the text, even if the reader might learn Steinbeck's understanding of timshel, among other things.
I had thought the answer would be simpler with respect to the work(s) under discussion in this thread.
Peder

 

[Peder]

I think the main thing Lahaye and Jenkins wanted to happen was for their books to be used as tools to get believers and unbelievers alike to examine the scriptures and talk to one another about these things. If that's true, then they've achieved a measure of success.

In this forum?

 

[abecedarian]

In this forum?

Even here We've already agreed the writing stinks...but look at the dialog about the theological issues..and no one has called anyone a bad name or anything. Life's good.

 

[Peder]

Even here We've already agreed the writing stinks...but look at the dialog about the theological issues..and no one has called anyone a bad name or anything. Life's good.

ABC,
I'm looking at the expressions of one's own doctrinal and spiritual views. But you decide.
Peder

 

[abecedarian]

ABC,
I'm looking at the expressions of one's own doctrinal and spiritual views. But you decide.
Peder

I see what you mean..it seems close to impossible not to include those in a discussion like this, but I can be wrong.

 

[Sitaram]

I once read through half of Plato's Dialogues, and tried to figure out what it was that Plato believed, and what it was that Socrates believed, and what Plato wanted the reader to thing. Such questions are more easily answered regarding authors who are still alive.

When we learn that Steinbeck had an elaborate wooden box carved, with "Timshel" in Hebrew letters on the lid, and enclosed a copy of East of Eden, as a give to his publisher, then we have greater insight into what Steinbeck thought about "timshel".

I am quickly browsing through "Left Behind" the first volume, and something on page 5 catches my attention as an attempt at dogma or doctrine.

quote:
He believed in rules, systems, laws, patterns, things you could see and feel and hear and touch. If God was part of all that, OK. A higher power, a loving being, a force behind the laws of nature, fine. Let's sing about it, pray about it, feel good about our ability to be kind to others, and go about our business. Rayford's greatest fear was that this religious fixation would not fade like Irene's Amway days, her Tupperware phase, and her aerobics spell. he could see just her ringing doorbells and asking if she could read people a verse or two. Surely she knew better than to dream of his tagging along.

(end of quote)

I must do some errands, but this is my first offering of something in LaHaye that approaches didactic doctrine.

Of course, one can hardly expect the authors to pause, mid sentence, and say, "Hello there, we are the authors and we wish to pause for a moment and address you, the reader, directly, to state, emphatically that the one true religion has the following characteristics, and that various Biblical passages may be interpreted only in certain ways."

Of course, LaHaye has many non fictional works and published interviews, so one may learn from a study of those, and perhaps his sermons, what he personally believes, and then attempt to identify in the fiction those passages which are really LaHaye speaking his personal convictions.

 

[Peder]

quote:
He believed in rules, systems, laws, patterns, things you could see and feel and hear and touch. If God was part of all that, OK. A higher power, a loving being, a force behind the laws of nature, fine. Let's sing about it, pray about it, feel good about our ability to be kind to others, and go about our business. Rayford's greatest fear was that this religious fixation would not fade like Irene's Amway days, her Tupperware phase, and her aerobics spell. he could see just her ringing doorbells and asking if she could read people a verse or two. Surely she knew better than to dream of his tagging along.

(end of quote)

Sitaram,
These sentences sound to me simply like the narrator explicitly describing what some of the two characters's thoughts and beliefs were. I don't see them as overtly didactic, or proselytizing. Unless you wish to say that the purpose of the book is to teach and proselytize those particular beliefs.
Peder

 

[alfinge]

Yeah you are all right for the most, and yeah Americans are not the chosen people! I liked the books, as a novel, but for some people this is dangerous reading. Some people thinks that this is for real belive it or not!
Im a Norwegian, and i have to read this books in english, they will never come out in Norwegian! And thats a good thing!!!

Hi You said that there is a movie? Do you have the name of that movie and when it was released? Thanks!!! :-D

 

[alfinge]

Mail me for all the books

Mail me for all the books if u want to read it, but its your mind not mine!
ice-t@tele2.no

 

[Sitaram]

Here are two links with details about the movie version of "Left Behind", by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Released on video in October 2000, LEFT BEHIND hit theater screens February 2, 2001.

http://www.cloudtenpictures.com/

http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0002.html

The second link (above) is very long and very detailed in its point by point scriptural analysis of the movie, summarizing accuracies and Biblical inaccuracies.

The passage (in bold, below) mentions something that really bothers me, because it seems to be a rhetorical device to convince people to pay lip-service to Christian doctrine, ignoring the manner of their life. In exchange for that lip-service they are promised that God will overlook every deplorable thing they have ever done or shall do in the future.

But it is also saying that, if someone does not confess Christ, then no matter how virtuous and splendid their life has been, they cannot be saved, since Christ alone is the way to salvation.

I cannot help but think of that passage in Isaiah which says: "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my (God's) ways from your (human) ways and my mind from your mind." Isaiah is receiving a revelation that God is unknowable/incomprehensible. Yet the Book of Revelation and LaHaye seem to have God down to a story-board level of detail, ready to start casting and filming on location.

I am also thinking of Paul's statement that of the three essentials, faith, hope and love, it is love which is the highest and most important. Yet the following excerpt in bold stresses not love but faith (doctrinal belief), as the key to salvation. Someone may have live a life filled with love, selfless sacrifice and devotion to serving others, and yet this excerpt says they shall not be saved, because their dogmatic faith lacks an accurate profession of Christ as their savior.

I am reminded of Hans Kung’s monumental work “On Being Christian”. In his third chapter he reminds us that, a few years before Christopher Columbus set sail, there was a Roman Catholic Council in Florence which decreed that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. In the 1960’s, at the Vatican II Council, a very brief three page encyclical was published, entitle Nostra Aetatis, which totally reversed the position of the Council of Florence, decreeing that God’s guiding grace and salvation is present in non-Christian faiths such as Hinduism.


The LaHaye book/movie correctly says that Jesus Christ alone is the way to salvation, although even this is watered down as maybe just meaning "God" is enough. When Ray confronts Buck after they view the tape, he says "If you don't put your faith in God you will be deceived". Later, when Buck finally does pray, he merely asks God to forgive him and direct him, but he never mentions Christ and His cleansing blood or and His redemptive work on the cross. The gospel message and its true meaning is very loosely portrayed.




Other excerpts from above link:

It is troubling that Hollywood often produces films that are blatantly anti-Christian. Even more troubling is when Christians with good intentions produce a film that tries to tell the truth, but is dangerously off in its theology. LEFT BEHIND is the latest film that tackles eschatology (the study of end times), and claims to be biblical. Yet the film misinterprets and misapplies significant portions of prophetic Scripture. Can this kind of misleading teaching in a film potentially domore harm than a blatantly anti-Christian message?

Released on video in October 2000, LEFT BEHIND hit theater screens February 2, 2001. Based on the best selling book by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, LEFT BEHIND was produced by Peter and Paul LaLonde, the same duo that produced the APOCOLYPSE, REVELATION, and TRIBULATION trilogy with Jack Van Impe and John Hagee Ministries.
For LEFT BEHIND, the LaLonde brothers re-teamed with Cloud Ten Pictures, who released TRIBULATION. But even with a budget of $14.7 million, the most money ever put into a Christian film, LEFT BEHIND falls short of being a first-class movie. Although the writing is an excellent adaptation of the novel, and is close to the best we've seen for a Christian film, there remain some weak moments that minimize the illusion of reality.

LEFT BEHIND is clearly a story told from the pretribulational perspective. In the film, the Rapture occurs before the signing of Antichrist's seven year covenant with Israel (Daniel 9:26), before the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22), and before the sign in the sun, moon, and stars (Matthew 24:29 and Joel 2:30). But a straight forward, face value reading of Matthew 24 reveals that the Rapture will not occur until after all of these things, and that the Rapture will be a cutting short of the persecution of the saints and the Jews. The timing of the Rapture as depicted in LEFT BEHIND is the key flaw to its entire eschatological message. Placing the Rapture before the seven-year period (the Seventieth Week of Daniel), sets up a foundation that knocks everything else on the timeline out of place and out of order.

ARE ALL THE END TIME EVENTS DEPICTED IN THE FILM WRONG?

The filmmakers do get some biblical facts straight, to a point. They correctly say that, according to Daniel 7, Antichrist will control ten kingdoms, which will control the world. They correctly say, according to 2 Thessalonians 2:4, that Antichrist will seat himself in the rebuilt temple, claiming to be God. They correctly state that Antichrist will, according to Daniel 9:27, confirm a covenant with the many for seven years.


(end of excerpts)

 

[Sitaram]

Here are a few more useful links on the movie version of LaHaye's book.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/left_behind.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2000/leftbehind.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2131365/

This next link is really worth your time reading:

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/lebehind.htm

(excerpt):

The book LEFT BEHIND is a fictional book based on prophecy, but it does teach doctrine. One of the very questionable doctrines it teaches is that at the time of the rapture pregnant women will suddenly become un-pregnant (that is, the unborn babies will be taken in the rapture and will leave the unsaved mother who be left behind, many pounds lighter!). A rapture for embryos! The following is found on pages 46-47 of the book LEFT BEHIND:


Most shocking to Rayford was a woman in labor, about to go into the delivery room, who was suddenly barren. Doctors delivered the placenta. Her husband had caught the disappearance of the fetus on tape. As he videotaped her great belly and sweaty face, he asked questions. How did she feel? .....


Infants are not saved and they are not in Christ; nor are they part of the church. It would be wrong to point to a living infant and say, "That baby is saved and has eternal life and his sins are forgiven!" On the contrary, every baby is born in sin and every infant has a wicked sin nature (Rom. 5:12, Psalm 51:5; Job 14:4; Psalm 58:3). Babies are not saved and they do not possess eternal life. If this were true, then does this mean that when they get older they become UN-saved and forfeit eternal life? This is Biblically absurd. It would also be absurd to say that all the unsaved children around the world growing up in Hindu and Muslim and Buddhist homes are part of the church that is in Christ.

The tribulation is a period of time when God's wrath will be put on display. It will be the most severe period of judgment the world has ever known. It will be similar to the plagues that fell on Egypt, only on a world-wide scale and more severe. It is helpful to think back through history on other occasions when God's judgment fell in order to see what happened to infants.

Is it unthinkable that God should expose helpless infants to a terrible time of judgment? What about the babies in Jericho? Were they supernaturally delivered? What about the children of the kingdom of Bashan and the children of the kingdom of Heshbon (see Deut. 3:6)? In Egypt the firstborn of each household was slain from the palace of Pharoah and on down. In Bethlehem God allowed babies to be slain due to Herod's jealous rage (Matthew 2).
(end of excerpt)

If we look at Psalm 51 (or 50 in the Septuagint), which is King David's repentance for the murder of Uriah and lust for Bathsheba, we read "For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me."

We read in Jeremiah, Chapter 1, verse 5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you ; Before you were born I sanctified you;"

Why would it be necessary for God to sanctify Jeremiah as a fetus, if newborn babies are sinless and saved? And at what point does a baby become sinful, and in need of Christ for salvation?

 

[StillILearn]

Yeah you are all right for the most, and yeah Americans are not the chosen people! I liked the books, as a novel, but for some people this is dangerous reading. Some people thinks that this is for real belive it or not!
Im a Norwegian, and i have to read this books in english, they will never come out in Norwegian! And thats a good thing!!!

I'm really glad you started this thread, alfinge.

 

[Peder]

Sitaram,
I think you have done a great service by pointing out errors with respect to Christian doctrine in the book or the film. Please allow me to say that I agree entirely with your exposition of correct doctrine, even though that opinion is of course neither here nor there in this thread.

My attempts to draw a distinction were instigated by two reviews that were included by reference toward the top of this thread, at least one of which uses the content of the book as a springboard for attacking a group of Christians whom the author disparagingly calls Fundies (and who also incidentally levels a snide remark at the people of the United States.)

In any discussion which may possibly become complicated or heated, I believe in general that it is a good thing to at least be quite clear at the outset what the exact topic of discussion is going to be -- in this case whether a discussion of supposedly Christian views being exchanged within a fictional work among fictional characters, or a discussion of views being presented by the author through the work for reception by the reader, or even more remotely a general discussion of Christian doctrine. Making that distinction might at least help people to establish an appropriate intellectual and emotional posture for considering the content of the book, which is what I believe this thread to be about.

Further, I think denunciations of Christianity (and Americans) are inappropriate in this thread, just as much as are arguments in favor. In either case I would much prefer that they were based on more authoritative sources rather than on imaginative works of fiction.

Sincerely,
Peder

 

[Sitaram]

Peder, I have been thinking about your several posts.

Are you saying that I have denounced Americans or Christianity? I may possibly have posted something which strikes you in that fashion, so please repost the hightlights of what I said that seems like a denouncing.

For years I have found great fault with Protestant Doctrine. I do not see Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy as perfect, but I do see many aspects of those confessions which are preferable.

A wise theologian once pointed out that the ground work for the Protestant Reformation by Luther in the 16th century was layed down by Augustine in the 5th century, with his doctrines regarding Grace.

Of course you do realize that the doctrines of LaHaye and those like him denounce all of human nature as hopelessly sinful, and condemned to eternal torment unless they confess Christ in a certain fashion. And as my wife pointed out to me, there is the insinuation in the books that no Roman Catholic is taken up in the Rapture, but only Protestants.

But please do highlight for me those passages from my posts which seem offensive, either by posting here, or privately in PM.

I must say that I find some members here so terrified of being politically incorrect that they seem paralyzed and hesitant to take a stand or risk crawling out upon a limb to make an original point. I too feel like I am walking on eggshells when I attempt to post.

Stop and think of the manner in which Protestant Christianity denounces Hindus as idolators, and Roman Catholics as idolatrous in their use of statues and images. I am not trying to argue tit for tat, or that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am simply trying to point out that this sectarian mood of denunciation and vilification is certainly germane to such writings as these. Many nations are characterized as Satanic in a sense, and we are told that not simply Protestants, but also God, despises them.

I feel the Roman Catholic Encyclical, "Nostra Aetatis", which recognizes something salvific in non-Christian religions, is far more loving and charitable and politically correct than the views of LaHaye, who would denounce the Papacy for such an Encyclical.

 

[Peder]

Peder, I have been thinking about your several posts.

Are you saying that I have denounced Americans or Christianity? I may possibly have posted something which strikes you in that fashion, so please repost the hightlights of what I said that seems like a denouncing.

No Sitarm, absolutely not! I am sorry I was so oblique and sincerely apologize if i offended you. Please read post #2.
Peder

I have responded immediately to get rid that misconception. Now I'll read the rest of your post and respond as appropriate, if appropriate.

 

[Peder]

sitaram,
I will just simply say that I don't think this is the place to discuss grievances, although I do recognize that your thoughts are offered in response to my message, the intent of which I hope is now clarified.
peder

 

[Sitaram]

I rather suspected that you might be generically referring to all posts in the thread, but I was not certain. I am relieved to learn I have been prudent in my language.

I want to have the freedom, in life (not just in this forum), to discuss and debate the philosophical, theological and political values of others, without falling into the trap of ad hominem or persecution.

For example, I enormously admire Charles Stanley, but I cannot agree with his doctrine of the "Eternal Security of Salvation". I do not see disagreement as a form of denunciation. I am certain that neither do you, Peder.

I cannot say that I enormously admire what I have learned about the life and person of Martin Luther of the German Reformation.

I see his greatest error in his failure to realize something which the Eastern Orthodox Church stresses at every monastic tonsure of vows, when they read "Make your vows and pay them to the Lord. Better never to vow at all than to vow and not pay." These two verses are from the writings of Solomon in the Old Testament. Luther conveniently forgets that he took life time vows in an Augustine order. No matter how correct Luther was in recognizing the abuses of the Papacy with regard to indulgences, there is no valid theological argument to release him from his personal vows which he voluntarily made. But Luther feels obliged to argue, theologically, that the entire notion of vows of celibacy is in error and offensive to God, ignoring the fact that one of the greatest figures in the Old Testament was the Prophet Elijah (Elias), a celibate ascetic, and in Christ's own words, there is none greater born of woman than John the Baptist, who was also a celibate ascetic.

Jesus told his disciples, paraphrasing from memory, "Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and some make eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. This is a difficult saying, but let those to whom it has been granted the strength of such a struggle take it up."

If you question a Protestant, they will say this simply means that one may remain a bachelor, if one chooses. Nowhere in the Protestant denominations, (except for a few Anglicans and Episcopalians) do we see a formal provision made for the celibate life which Jesus describes.

Obviously, these various inconsistencies influence my view of Protestant theology, and my understanding of Protestant theology influences my thoughts regarding an author such as LaHaye and his "Left Behind" series.

 

[Peder]

Sitaram,
I recognize the freedon you feel you need.
Please allow me to say, very reluctantly, that I think the discussion is wandering.
Most respectfully,
Peder