Haggard's Fall

For some reason, the fall of Ted Haggard has capitivated me. I didn't sleep well last night, and I found myself praying for Haggard's family, as well as "Pastor Ted" himself.

As I've stated over at Xark, I think the inevitable emphasis on Haggard's hypocrisy is misguided. But the sheer scale of Haggard's disgrace is almost luridly fascinating. He is experiencing what would be a nightmare for anyone: our deepest, darkest secret, the thing we are most ashamed of, put on display for the world. And in Haggard's case, "the world" is no exaggeration.

Because I can only imagine what that must feel like - for Haggard, but also for his wife and kids - I pray for them. But because Haggard is such a powerful and influential figure, the fallout from this is culturally, politically, and spiritually important. So I'm thinking about it, and I'm curious what others are thinking.

First, Harper's has made available online an earlier article about Haggard's ministry. It shows that Haggard's theology is one I loathe: This was a man who actively, consciously sought to commodify Chrisitian belief, who favored raw, military assertions of American might, who saw capitalism as ordained by Godself. Then, of course, there's also the position that precipitated his fall: A firm insistence on the evils of homosexuality and public support of political movements to ban gay marriage.

Amy Sullivan at the God's Politics (a blog written by Sojourners' Jim Wallis and allies) points out why this matters:

The Mark Foley scandal was one thing--it confirmed fears among many voters that Republicans didn't share their values; they tolerated homosexual behavior among their colleagues and staff while condemning it in front of their base voters.

This, however, is a scandal involving a shephard of the flock itself. If it turns out there is truth to the allegations, the story will reverberate further and longer than any of the scandals of the 1980s (Swaggart, Bakker, etc.) because it involves not just personal behavior, but an issue that conservative evangelicals have made extremely clear is one of their two top priorities. And I wonder how or if this will affect the condemnation of homosexuality in general within conservative evangelical circles. After all, we know that people's attitudes change once they learn that someone they know is gay. A lot of evangelicals know (or at least know of) Haggard. If indeed he has been involved with a gay man, that could blow a lot of evangelical minds.

But will minds actually be blown now that the truth is out? An excellent story at Salon.com suggests that, at least at Haggard's church, that's not happening:

A service that began with easy listening-style worship music sung by a 300-person choir, bathed in the fuchsia and lavender lights that suffuse the sanctuary, quickly became a clarion call for heterosexual marriage, and the "therapeutic restoration" of the soul of the founding pastor of this church. The choir and worship band sang about God's all-knowingness, of having absolute trust in him and nothing else. The clear message here was neither to question, nor to reassess, nor even to consider the personal struggle of their beloved former leader, who is at once the same man they have adored and followed -- and someone who happens to be attracted to men. It was to go back to the Psalms, and to soldier on.

This, basically, is what I was predicting at Xark: The fall of the messenger has no effect on the message. There's no logical reason it should, but I'd hope this would allow Christians to at least openly, honestly, consider the question of our collective approach to homosexuality.

Of course, Haggard himself is not reconsidering sexuality - his own or that of others. In fact, his heart-wrenching letter to his congregation shows a man who finds himself deeply sinful yet not wrong in his beliefs:

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life.

For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me. Then, because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn't want to hurt or disappoint them.

The public person I was wasn't a lie; it was just incomplete. When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me. As a result, I did things that were contrary to everything I believe.

Regardless of what you think about Haggard and his beliefs, this is gut-wrenching stuff. It's watching a life destroyed before our eyes, a real-life Greek tragedy, with the hero undone by his own hubris. To his credit, though, Haggard also offers the most complete, unambiguous apology of any public figure in recent memory. There is no blaming the media, his accuser, or some politically motivated conspiracy:

Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him. I am trusting that his action will make me, my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn't violate you; I did.

The word "harshly" bothers me here. It suggests self-flagellation, self-hatred, and the fact that "Pastor Ted" has a long, long road to healing. What bothers me more, though, is that he is submitting to the advice and discipline of a group of ministers that includes Dr. James Dobson. That's a scourge in human form, and Dobson's influence effectively rules out Haggard's taking a deeper look at his approach to sexuality - his own and that of others.

Still, I'm not going to argue the shame is totally misguided. At this point in Haggard's life, this isn't just about the rightness or wrongness of a homosexual orientation. It's also about a betrayal of his family and the wife to whom Haggard made vows of fidelity. It's worth considering that Haggard's orientation may be bisexual - he's not necessarily inventing his attraction to his wife, so his vows to her weren't necessarily a betrayal of his sexual identity. Personally, I also respect his wife for her apparent refusal to give up on him. The New York Times reports (registration required) that the congregation also heard from her Sunday:

“For those of you who have been concerned that my marriage was so perfect I could not possibly relate to the women who are facing great difficulties, know that this will never again be the case,” she wrote.

That got a rueful laugh, according to the Times. Also in the irony department: Haggard's book on how to have a happy marriage.

I'm conflicted on the church's approach to homosexuality, but I think we should prayerfully, lovingly, humbly consider the question of whether Christianity's traditional condemnation of homosexuality is wrong. In the meantime, I'm sort of adopting a methodology advocated by Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury: When we don't know the answer, sometimes we should be quiet until the spirit moves. (I don't know Williams position on homosexuality; this is general advice).

Still, we should be considering, praying, listening for the Spirit. I hope that Haggard and his congregation allow for the possibility that the Spirit may move in unexpected ways.

Evangelicals and Human Rights

The New York Times has an article today about how the evanglical Midland Alliance, playing up its connection to W (Midland is W's hometown) has played a role in pressing for peace in Sudan and now pressing the administration on human rights in North Korea.

Generally, I think this is a commendable move toward engagement with the world. And it isn't the only one. In 2000 (I think), Christians of all stripes lobbied, successfully, for debt relief for the world's poorest countries.

I have a bad tendency to turn into a sanctimonious liberal on this blog, so let me first say that I commend these folks for caring about more than "expanding their borders" in terms of material wealth, a la The Prayer of Jabez.

But I do wonder why evangelicals only get interested in oppression when it happens to other Christians -- in both Sudan and S. Korea, this religious bond is what motivates. I mean, it's only human to empathize with people to whom you have a connnection, and a shared faith is a strong link.

Still, the parable of the Good Samaritan suggests that being a "neighbor" means loving across cultural and religious lines. The Samaritan, the one who helped the stripped and beaten man, was not even a Jew. That implies that being a neighbor is not a fact of geography, or even common faith, but a title you earn by action.

But these evangelicals are doing more than most of us, me included. For that, they should be commended.

Governing For The Common Good: A Crazy Idea, with Christian Values

Yonce Shelton, writing for Jim Wallis's Sojourner's publication, has a nice opinion piece on how cutting taxes for the rich while slashing social programs is not governing for all of us. Some highlights:

"When people play by society's rules but can't provide for their families, there is a problem. Government is not the entire solution, but it should help - not hurt - those working to attain a living family income."

He continues:

In September, one week after Congress takes the final vote to cut billions from social programs in 2006 (and after they hope the outrage has died down), they'll vote on a separate budget bill expected to contain more than $100 billion in new tax cuts heavily favoring the rich. As in the past, social program cuts will be made in the name of fiscal restraint even though the new tax spending would increase the deficit by more than $100 billion over five years. Many leaders won't connect the dots publicly. In addition, like the recent tax cuts for the rich, new cuts probably won't really help low- and middle-income families. Help for struggling families was taken out of the 2003 bill at the last minute behind closed doors. Why should we expect anything different now, even though with poverty on the rise for the past three years it doesn't look like the so-called "trickle down" effect has helped?"

Amen, amen, amen.

Of developers, Navajo religion, and anger

I haven't published anything on this blog in over a month. But this world makes me angrier all the time.

I'm in Durango, Colorado. I've been in the area long enough to see how the rapacious greed of developers and mindless consumerism of coastal elites is destroying this beautiful part of the world. In Durango, a youth hostel has been bulldozed for condos. Up the road, a campsite has been replaced with vacation homes.

Worst of all, Red McCombs -- owner of some sports franchise, I forget which -- is planning to develop a huge vacation village in San Juan National Forest, very near Wolf Creek Ski Area. Wolf Creek has never had a village and is currently accessible only by a 30-minute car drive. The development will replace its family and low-budget crowd with people staying in McMansions that inhabit a couple weeks a year.

Actually, that's not the worst. The worst is looking at the real estate offices all over Durango. Good luck finding anything for less than $300,000. As local residents confirm, locals can no longer afford their own town. Californians make a heap selling their own homes and then buy here, driving prices up and/or invading the wilderness. The once-pristine valley north of Durango is now lined with upscale developments.

The point: What kind of a country do we live in when the right of so many people to enjoy nature can be trampled on so one rich developer can make money? Put another way: What kind of country are we when rich people's desire to have a vacation home in the mountains is allowed to trump the rights of local people to live where they work?

You really think Christ would side with the developers in this case? When did Christ EVER side with the rich?

And it is so rich -- so incredibly rich -- that the Republicans talk about "class warfare" or the "politics of envy." The wealthy (who the Republicans represent) are the ones that launched this war! Not content with their suburbs, they pour their money into inner cities, gentrifying them and pushing minorities out. They push the kayakers and mountain bikers off the rivers and out of the mountains -- after all, they paid for this piece of private property! Any place that's beautiful, they take -- the middle class and poor people who live there be damned. This "class warfare" began with an invasion -- the forceful taking of the rich of the few beautiful things that belonged to the poor or the community as a whole.

If that's the American way, then our country is morally bankrupt. We deserve the wrath of God.

Sure, the rich folks spend money and create jobs -- jobs waiting tables, clerking at motels, and scooping ice cream. The rich people's money buys them servants. Servants who don't even get to live on the grounds.

Man, I want to will the good for these developers. I know I should. But right now I have a hard time not hoping that there is a special place in hell for such people.

While down here, I've read a lot about the religions of the Navajo and Pueblo peoples. Seems they believe in a harmony between each person, nature, and all living things.

I think that's a Christian belief, too. I know that greed is a Christian sin. And I know that Jesus loved the poor. Because of this, I can only say that our nation grows more un-Christian by the day, no matter what our evangelical president says.

Do you advocate the overthrow of the United States Government?

I had an interesting experience on Friday. A friend of mine is applying for some sort of national-defense-related job in Washington, and she listed me as a contact for the obligatory background check. And so, on Friday, I found myself meeting with a quiet man in a gray suit on a quiet, out-of-the-way staircase on Emory's campus.

Among the questions asked was one along these lines: Do you know if [name deleted for security reasons] has a higher loyalty to any organization than to the United States Government?

I said no. But what I would have liked to say was, "Well, she should: It's called the church."

Swearing highest loyalty to anything that is not God -- especially the government of the world's most powerful nation-- should be off-limits for any Christian. And if our government requires such an oath, I think it is morally perilous, at the very least, for any Christian to take such a job.

Wait, is that a knock at my door? Who .... What ... Is that JOHN ASHCROFT?

Dispensationalism and the rapture, Part II

As promised, I'm following up on my earlier post about the structure of Premillenial Dispensationalism, the theology behind "the rapture" and the "Left Behind" series. Still citing the good work of socially concerned evangelist Tony Campolo, here are some of the dangerous implications of believing in dispensations and the rapture.

1) It's bad for churches. First, it marginalizes the church by making it just a historical "parenthesis" before the end times, rather than the dynamic body of Christ moving through history. By marginalizing the church, it also makes Christianity only a private phenomenon -- are you ready for the rapture? Also, it teaches that most churches -- especially the Roman Catholic Church -- are apostate churches of the "Laodicean variety" (get an explanation of that from my earlier post). Considering its view that only a view true churches oppose the apostate ones, it also fosters division, sectarianism, and schism.

2) Dispensationalism is apathetic toward social action at best and destructive at worst. Consider the logic: Why work for peace and justice if the world is about to end anyway? Since the end is near (and Christians have been saying that for 2000 years), shouldn't we spend all our energy doing work that counts, i.e., saving souls? Finally, dispensationalism believes that the end-times involves a steady escalation of conflict that will crescendo at the decisive battle of Armageddon. When dispensationalist have access to our leaders, as they currrently do, this is not harmless. Campolo points out that Jerry Falwell advised both Reagan and Bush I that America was God's instrument against the "evil empire." Bush's rhetoric clearly shows that he's accepted a similar view, that America is God's instrument against the "axis of evil." By assuming that conflict is God's will, and that we are God's instrument, dispensationalist leaders create an idol of our own power, confuse our will with God's, and create a self-fulfilling prophecy of rising violence.

3) Dispensationalism promotes a very negative view of government. It's not just big government. It's evil government. Governments work only in the temporal realm, which will soon be wiped away. And big governments -- like the U.N. -- may be seen as "instruments" of the Antichrist, who willl use them to create an illusory world peace while persecuting Christians. The book of Revelation has a lot to do with some evangelicals' negative attitude toward the U.N.

4) Dispensationalism fosters conflict in the Middle East. Many dispensationalists believe that, according to prophecy, the Jews must reclaim parts of the "Promised Land" currently held by Palestinians before the rapture can occur. Also, dispensationalists believe that the rapture awaits the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple on Mount Zion. Unfortunately, that location is currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock, where Islam's third holiest site. For these reasons, it is not surprising that ministers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson push for a very pro-Israel policy. A peace plan, in short, cannot be God's plan.

5) Dispensationalism disparages the environment. Why protect what is about to pass away? James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan, advocated oil exploration even in places like Yellowstone National Park. He thought the "signs" showed the end was quite near, so there was no need to save the environment for the future.

6) Dispensationalism marginalizes the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus's most important collection of teachings. Here is where Jesus lists who are "blessed": the poor, the peacemakers, those who suffer, the merciful. These teachings, dispensationalists contend, apply not to this age but to the coming Millenium. Therefore, they may discount the truly radical part of Jesus's message: peace, justice, and hope for the marginalized.

Dispensationalism, it is fair to say, has immense destructive possibilities. But do all evangelicals believe in it?

No. Most importantly, charismatic groups like Pentecostals depart from the dispensationalist worldview. In large part, this is because dispensationalists believe that the spiritual gifts that charimatics hold dear -- speaking in tongues, for example -- belonged to an earlier dispensation, not ours. I must admit that I am uncomfortable with such forms of worship, but that's just who I am. At any rate, Pentecostalism is sweeping the world, especially the third world, and it brings a message that is basically more loving, more hopeful, and less hateful than fundamentalism.

Also, in a random point, Pentecostalism began as a wildly diverse movement in 1906, at the Azusa Street Revivals in Los Angeles. The movement eventually fractured along racial lines, with whites going to denominations like the Assemblies of God and blacks going to denominations like the Church of God in Christ (COGIC). I'd also wager that Pentecostal churches tend to be more diverse today than any other denomination.

And, hey, that matters if the world isn't ending tomorrow.

From South Carolina, a Gentle, Christian Voice on Gay Marriage

My former editor at The (Charleston, S.C.) Post and Courier, Dan Conover, had a nice post on his blog yesterday. Apparently, South Carolina is considering a gay marriage amendment and a Baptist preacher, of all people, spoke against it. Below is the text of his comments. I think they are good ones.

The Rev. Dr. Robert Shrum
Pastor, Oakland Baptist Church, Rock Hill SC
Remarks to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On the Proposed Constitutional Amendment Barring Gay Marriage
Room 306, Senate Office Building (Gressette Building), March 31, 2005 (1:30 p.m.)
By the Rev. Dr. Robert Dale Shrum

Greetings Chairman Ford, Senator Hawkins, Senator Cleary and Senator Hutto: good afternoon, and thank you for hearing me today.

I am Bob Shrum, and I am a resident of Rock Hill where I have been the pastor of the Oakland Baptist Church for over 22 years. I have served two other Baptist congregations in Sumter and Pendleton. My pastoral service to Baptist churches in South Carolina has spanned more than 34 consecutive years. I grew up in Florence, and graduated from the University of South Carolina. I have deep roots here, and I love this state of ours. I am Sandlapper to the core.

My remarks to you this afternoon grow, basically, out of two loves: my love of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and what I have learned through the years of him, and my love of this wonderful state where most of my almost 60 years have been spent. Please hear them in that light.

First of all, let me tell you that I speak for myself. I do not speak for the Oakland Baptist Church in Rock Hill or any other group or individual. If any of you are Baptist, you know that Baptists do not speak for each other. We're funny that way. We like our independence and resent it when others pretend to speak for us. Additionally, you should know that I am not gay, nor do I have---to my knowledge--- any family members who are gay. Quite simply, my remarks to you grow from conscience and deeply held convictions informed by Christian faith and over 40 years study of the Scriptures.

Let me tell you a story. When I was a little boy growing up in Florence, my Daddy was the manager of the Goodyear Tire Store on Irby St. He was good at what he did. Everybody admired him, and so did I. He was a Deacon in the First Baptist Church where we were members. One night---long after we had gone to bed---the telephone rang. It was from one of the men who worked back in his service department. He was in jail over in Marion and needed somebody to come get him out, so he called my Daddy.

His crime? He was black and driving around after midnight, and it was in the 1950's. They arrested him on the pretense of suspicious behavior. In the wee hours of the morning my Daddy climbed into his '56 Ford with a T Bird engine and flew over to Marion. Not only did he get his employee out of jail that night, but the local sheriff got a real large piece of my Daddy's mind when he tried to laugh it all off and say "no harm done."

I asked him about it the next night. I was 12 years old, and I wanted to know why he went to all the trouble. His explanation, "Bobby, it just wasn't right." I learned a lesson from my Daddy that night that I carry into this room today: IT'S JUST PLAIN NOT RIGHT TO TREAT FOLKS LIKE THEY DON'T COUNT---LIKE THEY'RE NOT REAL PEOPLE. But there's something else I bring into this room today. I have to believe it's a big part of what my Daddy took to that jail in Marion that night. It's the life, influence and example of Jesus, himself.

Now, if you're not a Christian, maybe that's not all that important to you. But I am a Christian, and it's real important to me, so I have to speak out of what, in my heart, is foundational. And, for me, it's Jesus. It's not Leviticus. It's not even Paul because sometimes Paul sends mixed signals. It's not the Pope. It's not denominational headquarters. It's not the religious figures who speak so loudly and authoritatively so as to drown out all those who would differ. I look to Jesus when I am puzzled and don't have all the answers like I wish I had.

I had a teacher in seminary. Old Testament teacher. Clyde Francisco was his name. Dr. Francisco used to tell us, "Now boys, remember this: whenever you get stumped trying to understand the meaning of something in the Bible, just let Jesus be your interpreter. Let the spirit of Christ be your guide, and you won't go wrong." And that's what I try to do. And, to tell the truth, it's not always so easy.

It's not easy because lots of times I would rather let my prejudices guide me. After all, I've lived long enough to know what's right and what's wrong, and I'd like to think that most of the time I'm right, and those who don't agree with me are wrong. That's why I have to try real hard to let the spirit of Christ be my guide. And whenever I've been successful at pulling that off, I never go wrong. And I commend that to you today if you're in a quandary about what to do with this big, big question you're dealing with. If you approach it with the spirit of Christ, you won't go wrong.

So, what does the spirit of Christ look like? What does it smell like? What does it sound like? It's a bunch of blue-collar fishermen. It's a despised tax collector. It's a colony of lepers. It's a hated Roman soldier with a sick son. It's hungry people being fed. It's the children who they tried to keep quiet and out of sight. It's a woman married five times that he made feel worthy. It's another woman caught in adultery that the religious establishment wanted to execute, but he set her free. It's a Samaritan man who the church people hated, but Jesus made him a hero. It was a little old lady so poor that she only had a few pennies for the offering plate, and Jesus held her up as an example for the ages. It was a woman of the streets who became one of his best friends. It was a thief on a cross that he took home with him.

You see, the religious experts of his time called him a drunk and a glutton because he went to parties with them, and they despised him because he hung out with the folks who were on the margins of respectable society---the disenfranchised ones---the ones they called the dregs of society. And they killed him for it. BUT THAT WAS HIS SPIRIT. And it was a spirit that ultimately would not, could not go wrong.

Last Sunday---Easter---amidst all our "Hallelujahs, He is risen" we reminded ourselves that it is that kind of spirit that will always, always prevail. Easter tells us that God will not allow the spirit of Christ to be defeated. We may try to kill it with our hateful attitudes, but at the end of the day, it will be our hateful attitudes toward "the least of these" that will go down to defeat.

Can't we see it? Jesus refused to marginalize any segment of society. They were all God's children and therefore brothers and sisters to each other. And he only reserved his harshest word for the religious/political establishment which had become quite adept at fixing their constitutions to separate the decent folk from the different folk. He said they were like tombstones---pretty and white on the outside, but dead and empty on the inside.

So, I appeal to you today. Let the Spirit of Christ guide you even if you are not a Christian. You won't go wrong if you do. Do not use the Constitution of our beloved state to marginalize a segment of our citizenry. Do not listen to the fear-mongers. They have always been among us throughout our history trying to scare us with their doomsday scenarios, trying to marginalize one segment of society and then another. And, they have always been proven wrong at the end of the day.

Trust the spirit of Christ. Trust Easter. Or as my Daddy might have said, "IT'S JUST PLAIN NOT RIGHT TO TREAT FOLKS LIKE THEY DON'T COUNT." Thank you for your time.

On the Living Christ

Enough politics from the mustard seed. Let’s have a bit of faith.

For a variety of reasons, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it means to believe in a living Christ. Most importantly, it means that I do not have faith in the Bible, any doctrine, or any political stance. Of course, I do believe in all those things with greater and lesser degrees of certainty. But the bedrock of my faith is singular: the living Christ as Lord, now and always.

This sort of faith does not seem prevalent in America today. Liberal Christians, in my experience, tend to believe primarily in doctrines related to social justice. Conservatives come perilously close to worshiping the Bible, not the Christ it reveals.

Let me restate: I find both of those things radically secondary. Christ as Lord demands that we recognize his lordship. Our understandings of justice may change with context; the primacy of Christ will not. Likewise – and I’ll lose the conservatives here – Christ transcends anything written about him in the Bible. I believe the Bible is inspired but human; it is not perfect because only One is perfect. Moreover, the Bible can never totally capture the living Christ nor his work for a simple reason: It is written in human language. Human words may be inspired. We could even grant the fundamentalists that they are dictated by God. They would still, however, be expressed in language, a creation of human society. And because language is human, it can never fully describe the transcendent reality of God.

Certainly, the Bible points to the perfect One. But it can never contain the living Christ, who reigns over even it. That’s the Christ in whom I rest my hopes.

Evangelicals, I should add, are right in at least one major way: The most essential thing is a relationship with Christ. Is such a relationship "personal," as evangelicals claim? I just asked a professor of mine what he thought, and his answer seemed good. Certainly, we relate to God as a person because we can only relate as persons. But God in Godself transcends anything we can conceive by the world "person." In other words, God is not my co-pilot or my buddy. Christ is my Lord, who relates to me as person because I can relate in no other way.

As Christians, we thank God for that mercy.

Left Behind? Describing "Premillenial Dispensationalism"

I have just finished "Speaking My Mind," by Tony Campolo. For those of you unfamiliar with Campolo, he is a self-styled evangelical progressive, committed a personal relationship with Jesus, the infallibility of the Bible, and – more unusually – to social justice.

I’ll probably write more about Campolo later, but his chapter on dispensationalism – the fundamentalist framework for understanding history – was an eye-opener for me. Doctrines of dispensationalism lie behind everything from the "Left Behind" series to conservative evangelicals’ support for Israel. Journalist Bill Moyers recently gave a speech (a version of which has been widely circulated on the Internet) linking some evangelicals’ disregard for the environment to their dispensationalist beliefs.

Because dispensationalism is so powerful, yet understood by so few (including many evangelicals I know), I thought I’d outline its basic structure here. Later, I will explain why dispensationalism has major political implications.

The following account relies on Campolo (who is NOT a dispensationalist but a critic), as well as on my Christian history courses. A warning: this is long.

Dispensationalism is an eschatology, which is an account of the "eschaton," or the end of history. It begin in the mid-19th century with John Nelson Darby, a leader of a conservative British sect called the Plymouth Brethren. Darby’s doctrine first gained widespread acceptance among American fundamentalists through one major vehicle: the Scofield Reference Bible. Originally published in 1909, the wildly popular Scofield Bible supported (and supports – it still circulates) a dispensationalist theology in its study notes. That theology eventually gained widespread acceptance in fundamentalist and conservative Bible schools such as Moody Bible Institute and Fuller Theological Seminary -- institutions that, in turn, spread it further. Today, Dallas Theological Seminary, among others, is a leading proponent of dispensationalist thinking.

Dispensationlism claims that the Bible divides history into seven dispensations, each one characterized by a different relationship between humanity and God, each one ended by humanity’s failure disobedience. These dispensations are:

1) The Dispensation of Innocence: This dispensation begins at creation and end when God expels Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were, of course, innocent until they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2) The Dispensation of Conscience: Having acquired the knowledge of good and evil, people may achieve salvation by following the dictates of conscience. Of course, they fail. The dispensation ends when God destroys wicked humanity with the great flood.

3) The Dispensation of Human Government: God now requires humans to create a government that will ensure righteous living. We don’t. The dispensation ends with the "confusion of tongues" at the Tower of Babel.

4) The Dispensation of Promise: This 400-year period begins with the call of Abraham into the land that God eventually promises to his descendants. It ends when Moses receives the Law on Mount Sinai, after the Exodus. Here, Campolo says, "salvation belongs to the Jews and is contingent upon God’s chosen people living according to the covenant to ‘walk before the Lord.’"

5) The Dispensation of Law: Beginning when Moses received the Law at Sinai and ending at the crucifixion of Jesus, this period allowed Jews to achieve salvation by keeping the Law, or Torah. For sinful people, keeping the law proves impossible.

6) The Dispensation of Grace: We live in this dispensation, a period in which salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ and his saving act on the cross. According to Campolo, "this is considered a parenthetical period and was unanticipated in the broad scheme of history as understood by the ancient Hebrew writers of Scripture." In other words, the Hebrews expected the messiah to immediately usher in the "end times." The messiah came (but we still await) the reign of Christ.

7) The Dispensation of Kingdom: This dispensation begins when Christ returns to Earth, where he will reign for 1,000 years.

Sound complicated? There’s more. The parenthetical period – our current dispensation of grace – is subdivided into 7 smaller eras. These reflect seven distinct periods of church history, a division that Darby found in the seven churches described in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation. According to Campolo’s description, these subdivisions within our current, parenthetical dispensation are:

1) "Ephesus: The second generation of Christians, following the early church described in Acts 2."

2) Smyrna: The period of persecution under Rome.

3) Pergamum: The period when the church allied with Constantine (who made Christianity the Roman Empire’s religion).

4) Thyatira: The "apostate" church of the Middle Ages, who supposedly worshiped Mary.

5) Sardis: The post-Reformation church, characterized by "spiritual deadness."

6 and 7) Philadelphia and Laodicea: The churches of the last days. Philadelphia refers to the faithful remnant of true Christians. Laodicea refers to churches that are rich but spiritually bankrupt.

According to the dispensationalists, we are in the era of Philadelphia and Laodicea. This means that the end times are imminent. But what happens at the end times?

Dispensationalists agree that there will be seven years of widespread suffering, followed by the final return of Christ. This unpleasant period is referred to as the Tribulation. Many, but not all, dispensationalists believe that true Christians will be "raptured" before the Tribulation, and that non-believers will be "left behind" – hence the setting for the best-selling series of the same name.

After the Tribulation, Christ will inaugurate his 1,000 year reign on earth. Then, after a brief Satanic uprising, the demonic powers will be destroyed forever and the faithful brought into a new heaven and earth for eternity.

As Campolo points out, this belief system has major implications for political belief, which I will detail soon. A teaser: For some, prophecy reveals that the rapture can't occur until Solomon's Temple is rebuilt on Mt. Zion. There is, however, one small problem with this reconstruction project: it would involve removing a mosque. Get the idea?