FEBRUARY 2020

Welcome to the February 2020 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. We are thrilled to continue to educate and entertain here in our tenth year of this web journal.

This month we consider some reasons to not attend church and we discuss what a Catholic has to say about the rapture (spoiler alert: we disagree with his conclusions!).

We also discuss the impeachment, the democratic party, and the most recent Star Wars film.

We love your feedback, even if you come at some of these issues with a different perspective or an opposing view. Send your concerns, critiques and compliments on any of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

Also, you can post your thoughts and responses on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page.

Thanks for reading and stay eclectic!

NEWS BYTES: Impeachment, Socialism and Entertaining Debates

        by Matt Kasper

The Liar, The Witch Hunt, and the Blue Wardrobe

    Now that the impeachment business is over, we look back and note a few concerns about the process.

    First of all, the process was driven by several people of questionable character, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. But the liar-in-chief among this questionable crew is Adam Schiff. And if you have a reputation in Washington D.C. for being a liar, that means something.

    Schiff began the impeachment proceedings in the House on September 26, 2019 by mischaracterizing Trump’s July 25 phone call with President of the Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky. I like satire, and it certainly has its place, but not in an official hearing. What he calls “a parody,” most of the rest of us would call lies.     This mischaracterization was that much more deceptive in light of the fact that the actual transcript of the call was available.

    Even after this, Schiff continued to mischaracterize this call and its severity. Schiff lied about his previous knowledge of or interaction with “the whistle blower.” Schiff held secret meetings in the basement of the Capital Building, and he prohibited the Republicans from calling their own witness. Those who accused the Senate phase of the impeachment trial as being unfair are the same ones who ran a tyrannically unfair and deceptive trial in the House.

    We all know that Trump is no Boy Scout, and that he is a fallible as any other human. However, he has been the object of baseless witch hunts for years now. Efforts to impeach him began before he even took office. Despite reports, trials, and investigations, there has been no evidence of corruption, violations, or any high crimes and misdemeanors.

    At least with the impeachment of Bill Clinton there was an unmistakable instance of perjury, or lying under oath, and even a stained blue dress to verify his indiscretions.

    Is Trump the classiest, smoothest, or most polished guy that has ever served in office? No. Has he done anything clearly criminal or unconstitutional? Also no.

A Socialist Savior

    Bernie Sanders just barely lost the Iowa caucus (we think?). But then he barely won the New Hampshire primary and decisively won in Nevada (Bernie Sanders – 46.8%, Joe Biden – 20.4%, Pete Buttigieg – 13.9%, Elizabeth Warren – 9.8%). And unless the DNC sabotages Bernie again like they did in 2016, he may actually win the nomination.

    If that happens, then we may have the two most authentic candidates in a presidential contest in years.

    Whatever your opinion is about Trump, at least you don’t have to wonder what his views are. He tweets exactly what he thinks about everything. It may not always be that presidential, but at least you don’t feel like he’s hiding things from you.     Bernie similarly is not ashamed of who he is as an avowed socialist. He believes that America should embrace greater government control and should aggressively redistribute wealth. He wants government to punish successful companies and wealthy individuals by making them pay even more in taxes. At least he is honest, but unfortunately, he is honestly wrong about good governance and financial policies.

    And at least the Democratic party is finally being honest about who they are. They are Socialist wolves in the wool of a legitimate political party.

Debate Debacles

    I began watching a Saturday Night Live sketch, but then I realized it was too early to be SNL, and that it was Wednesday and not Saturday, and then, that it was actually the ninth Democratic Party debate.

    The Democratic debate on Wednesday, February 19 in Las Vegas was fun, but only for entertainment purposes, not because there were many substantive ideas presented that would be good for our country. It was satisfying to see Mike Bloomberg’s poor performance and the way other contenders vilified him.

    Early in the debate, Elizabeth Warren got in a good shot at Bloomberg: “So, I’d like to talk about who we’re running against, a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And, no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”

    It was an evening full of bluster and naivete. Amy Klobuchar stated at one point: “I have an idea of how we can stop sexism on the internet. We could nominate a woman for candidate for president of the United States.” This is an interesting, but clueless, proposal considering that we had an African-American individual in the White House for eight years, yet Democrats still gripe about racism. Also, Buttigieg attacked Klobuchar for not knowing the name of the President of Mexico, insisting that her roles on Senate committees demand that she should know this information.

    Here are just a few more highlights:

    It’s gonna be a fun year!

    What do you think about the impeachment, the debates, and politics in general? Send your thoughts, questions, or critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll print them anonymously in a future edition.

CHURCH: Reasons Not To Attend Church (And Why Those Reasons are Dumb)

    Here in 2020 we’re going to provide some articles about ecclesiology, or the theological discipline that deals with Biblical doctrines related to the church (the Greek word for “church” is ecclesia).

    But I wanted to cover more interesting and relevant aspects of the church, such as the mission of church, the structure of church leadership, and some of the false perceptions that people have about church and church attendance. In fact, we’ll tackle this last point presently.

    It is amazing the excuses that people in general, and even those who claim to be Christians, have for not attending church. The question is not whether these objections are true or false; many of them have some legitimacy. The question is whether the truth of the objection outweighs the need for every believer to be in church regularly.

    Objection #1: “You get hurt in church.” First, let’s acknowledge that this is a legitimate concern; people do get hurt, offended, marginalized, neglected, and some people get hurt far worse than that in church. But again, the question is not whether this objection is legitimate or not, but whether it is legitimate enough to prevent us from attending church; the answer to this question will always be no!

    I would ask this individual to name a worthwhile activity or endeavor that doesn’t come with the threat of getting hurt. We sign waivers to go canoeing, or hiking in certain places, or sky-diving because, while there is high potential for fun, there is also a low possibility of pain. In our house, we used to say, “You get hurt in sports.” This meant that if you want to enjoy playing sports, the thrill of victory, the glory of a base hit or a touchdown or a three-point shot, then you also have to be aware of the corresponding risks of playing, which may mean a light injury from time-to-time and may even mean a serious injury.

    Jesus was crucified at the hands of those who claimed to be religious. Hebrews 11 catalogs those who chose faith over the hurts and pains inflicted by this world. Paul understood that you get hurt in ministry and in church; in Galatians 6:17 he says, “I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.”

    And keep this in mind: while people do get hurt in church, we can often find healing in church, too. In addition to that, you can maximize your time in church by being an agent of healing for someone else, who also may have been hurt in church.

    Objection #2: “I can’t find a church I like!” In response to this objection, I’m trying to avoid words like “narcissistic” and “twit,” but unfortunately, there are plenty of narcissists and twits in churches. They think that church is all about them, and catering to them, their family, and their stage of life. No wonder they can’t find a church they like!    But church is about God and about us serving Him. In fact, our whole lives should be focused on that goal (1 Cor 10:31; 1 Pet 4:11). Honestly, this objection is usually just an excuse to not go to church, and a sign that someone is not diligently searching for a good one.

    It is OK to be at a church that we don’t entirely like. There should be good doctrine, careful Bible teaching, and a spirit of love, compassion, and service. Beyond that, if there is something you would like to see improved, then (humbly!) talk to your leadership and see how receptive they are. (Receptivity of the leadership to suggestions is a sign you’re at a good church!)

    Keep in mind that heaven is the place where we will worship and enjoy God under ideal conditions; that place is not now. For now, during this age, in this fallen world, we have church. Your church is not perfect, but it should be sufficient to help your grow and serve.

    Heaven will come, but for now, we need church. And with around 75,000 Protestant evangelical churches in the country, you have no excuse to not find a serviceable one. Pick a church, engage with the people there, grow in your faith, and use your gifts and resources to bless others.

    Objection #3: “There are hypocrites in church.” I like to tell people, “Sure, churches are full of hypocrites; come join us – you’ll fit right in!”

    Churches do have hypocrites in them mainly because hypocrisy is innate to the human condition. Going to church doesn’t make us hypocrites; most people go to church because we recognize inconsistency and hypocrisy in our lives. Church helps us to live a more authentic life that mirrors God’s kindness and goodness. It sometimes takes years of church to shed the symptoms of hypocrisy. And, to be fair, some churches unwittingly nurture hypocrisy and condescension in their parishioners’ lives. But to avoid all churches because there are some hypocrites in church is infantile and, frankly, rather hypocritical.

    Name one arena in life where there are no hypocrites. There are hypocrites in sports, politics, business, and entertainment. The individual making this objection would never be able to attend a sporting event, vote in an election, or purchase anything. If you have people, you have hypocrisy; nobody lives a life that is perfectly consistent with their ideology and their proclamations.

    There is always hypocrisy in religion, as evident from the multiple instances of the forms of the Greek word hupokrisis in the New Testament (Matt 6:2; 7:5; 23:28; Mark 12:15; Luke 12:1; 20:20; 1 Tim 4:2). Specifically, we are exhorted to “put aside” a variety of vices, including hypocrisy (1 Pet 2:1). Why should you allow someone else’s hypocrisy to prevent you from attending church and growing in your faith?

    Yes, church is filled with hypocrites, and that is exactly why we go to church. We are striving to learn from God’s Word and wisdom so that we can live a more Christ-like and consistent life.

    The sum of these objections is that they are in direct disobedience to verses like Hebrews 10:23-25, which highlight the importance of corporate gatherings with believers (see also Acts 2:42-47; 4:32; 20:7). Home family Bible study, or TV service, or listening to a pastor on the radio, these are not church. Barring some significant health limitation, if you are not physically attending a local church, not connecting personally on Sunday mornings with other believers, not sitting in the presence of teachers and preachers who want to help you grow, and not contributing your spiritual gifts, talents, and resources to a local body, then you are not going to church (1 Cor 16:1-3). Rather you are rebelling against the mechanism that God has chosen for mission, effectiveness, and growth during this age, namely, His Church, the body of Christ on earth (Eph 1:22-23; 3:8-10).

    Find a local church; it won’t be perfect, and it doesn’t need to be fantastic. It just needs to be a doctrinally-sound, Bible-teaching body of loving and growing believers who will help you grow and allow you to use your gifts to edify other believers and to magnify God’s glory.

    What other (dumb) excuses do Christians use for not attending church? What do you think of those excuses? Let us know and send your thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll publish your feedback anonymously in a future edition.

ON MY BOOKSHELF: Is the Rapture Real? Part 1

    A friend was recently giving books away, and I snatched up a thick volume entitled Rapture. I perused it just enough to verify that it wasn’t some weird fictionalization of end times events. Our church was at the beginning of a study of Revelation, so I thought that this would help me brush up on my theology of the rapture.

    I am always suspicious when someone answers a question or refutes an argument too quickly. However, I’m just as concerned when it takes someone a long time and many pages to do so. A short refutation signals oversimplification or misunderstandings of the problem. An overlong refutation indicates an answer that is unnecessarily complicated. And that is exactly what we have here.

    David Currie writes a very long book (418 pages, plus another 50 pages of appendices) to refute the pre-tribulational rapture, something that he claims is not even Biblical. Despite the simple title Rapture: The End-Times Error that Leaves the Bible Behind (2003), this is a book of rabbit trails that hardly touch on the theology of the rapture.

    Currie, who converted to Catholicism, claims to have been raised in Fundamentalist churches that emphasized end times events and the imminence of the rapture. The rapture refers to an event right before God’s judgment of the world at the end of times. Those who have trusted in Christ will be caught up into the sky by Christ and taken immediately to heaven before the seven-year Great Tribulation begins on earth. The word “caught up” in 1 Thess 4:17 is the Latin word rapio, which is where we get the word “rapture” from. This event is discussed in 1 Thess 4:13-17, but it is also alluded to in 1 Cor 15:51-53, and perhaps Matt 24:40-42, Mark 13:27 and 2 Thess 2:1, as well.     Though the rapture is mentioned in Scripture, Currie takes a long time to argue that it was created by Fundamentalist Protestants and has no basis in Scripture or church history. He argues that most of the prophecies in Daniel, Zechariah, Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25), and Revelation were fulfilled by the year 70 AD, when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans (this view is called Preterism). He rejects the idea that these prophecies speak of future events which will be proceeded by a rapture of believers.

    Currie’s introduction features vignettes of people so paralyzed by the nearness of the rapture that they refuse to move to a new location or have more children or actively promote political views (pages xix-xx). He claims that these examples are true stories; if they are true, they represent those who never really understood Biblical eschatology. In fact, stopping life because of the nearness of eschatological events is exactly what Paul exhorted believers to avoid in 2 Thessalonians 3.

    There is so much error and bad methodology in this book, I’m going to have to break this review into a few parts. I have classified the problems in this book into several categories. I’ll finish this article with the first two problems and then I’ll discuss a few more in “Part 2” below.

    And I also want to make a qualification that should precede more theological as well as political and academic discussions: I’m sure that David Currie is a very nice man, who loves Jesus, and who thinks that he is making some legitimate points. He has certainly done a lot of digging, research and writing. I may say some not-very-kind things about this book and his research, but these are theological, methodological, and academic critiques, and not at all personal, as I have never met nor had any contact with Currie beside this book.

Problem #1: Unfamiliarity with Rapturist Theology

    Despite claiming to have grown up in Fundamentalist contexts, his book promotes several misnomers that betray a lack of familiarity with rapture theology. For instance, he claims that the rapture means that for those left behind, there is no longer any opportunity for salvation. However, pre-tribulational rapturists believe that many will be saved during the Great Tribulation. Despite those vignettes in his introduction, it will not be too late to trust in Christ and receive salvation after the rapture occurs. Scripture is clear that at least 144,000 will become believers (Revelation 7:4-8), and many pre-tribulationalists see that these are only the tip of the iceberg relative to the innumerable throngs that will be saved during the Tribulation (vv. 9-10 hints at this reality).

    Another misunderstanding about the rapture calls into question Currie’s familiarity with rapturists and fundamentalist beliefs. He thinks that the term “secret” rapture means that it is not public or unmistakable (401). Furthermore, those who believe in the rapture never teach that the rapture will be “private” (402, 415). The idea of the rapture being secret means that people will not see it coming until it happens, for only at Christ’s actual, literal coming back to earth “every eye will see Him” (Rev 1:7). Honestly, “secret” is probably not the best term to explain the concept, but Currie clearly doesn’t understand it properly.

    There are other misrepresentations of rapturists. Currie falsely claims that rapturists believe Jesus must come before the end of the twenty-first century (432). Also, someone told him that September 11, 2001 was a fulfillment of Revelation 18 (376). While some may have believed this at the time, this has never been a plank in mainstream pre-tribulational theology; Currie should separate hearsay remarks from serious theological discussions. Also, I have never heard pre-tribulationalist who believes “that most of the teachings of Jesus do not apply to present-day Christians!” (15). This is an odd mischaracterization of Protestants and of those who believe in the rapture.

    He claims that rapturists believe God will reinstate the Old Covenant (441). Some rapturists and dispensationalists posit that old blood sacrifices will be used again (Zech 14:21) but not because the Old Covenant is reinstated. He asked a professor why there would be sacrifices in the millennial kingdom, and that individual “knew of no plausible Protestant explanation for this verse!” (449). Some basic research, however, reveals that many rapturists believe some animal sacrifices may be reinstated as a way of graphically pointing back to what Christ did, a rite of memorial like communion. I don’t fully agree with this view, but the point is that Evangelical scholarship has addressed these issues before. Again, Currie’s lack of knowledge of Protestant scholarship or refusal to interact with it is quite irresponsible.

    Currie seems unfamiliar with “progressive dispensationalism,” which seeks to correct, among other things, the notion that the church age is just a parenthesis in God’s redemptive plan. Rather, most rapturists believe that the church has a critical, not a parenthetical, role to play in God’s redemptive purposes. He further demonstrates his ignorance of the rapturists movement by associating them with the “health and wealth” gospel movement (378), palm readers (379), and Gnostics (368), a diverse first and second century heresy.

    He is right that many Protestant interpreters do take the Bible as literally as possible, such as the notion that the world was created in six days and that there will be cataclysmic judgments at the end of this age (382). To drift from normal and literal interpretation allows one to launch into a plethora of dangerous subjective interpretations, such as many of the ones that Currie promotes in this book.

Problem #2: Laying and Breaking Ground Rules

    Currie describes a series of hermeneutical (interpretative) tenets, which he calls “Ground Rules” (74-75). He doesn’t appeal to any higher authority, Catholic or Protestant, before imposing these rules, and he demonstrates that he can’t follow them consistently.

    Ground Rule 4 is that “Apocalyptic visions may use one image to symbolize two realities” (63), a rule Currie breaks frequently. On the next page he discusses an apocalyptic prophecy in Isaiah 13 about the day of the Lord, after which He queries, “Was Isaiah speaking of the end of the world? Hardly” (64). But according to his own rule about futuristic prophecy, couldn’t Isaiah be talking about a near fulfillment as well as an end-of-times fulfillment? According to Currie, and despite Ground Rule 4, apparently not!

    He later discusses the “abomination of desolation” in Daniel 12:11, which could clearly refer to several historical and apocalyptic realities. But Currie suggests, that “if we must choose a single event” for the abomination of desolation, then it “most likely refers to the invasion of Judea by the Roman army” (135). But his own rule dictates that this vision could refer to two or even more realities or occasions. In fact, the entire book breaks Ground Rule 4 by suggesting that the imagery in Revelation only points to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but not at all in a future reality. It is bad enough that Currie makes his own rules for reading the Bible; it is worse that he fails to apply these rules consistently in his own interpretations.

    We can’t fit all of our concerns with this book into just one article; see “Part 2” of this review below.

MOVIES/ TV: A Slight “Rise” In a Struggling Franchise

        ***Spoiler Alert: This article contains spoilers for the movies described.***

    I remember as a high school student in the early 90s hearing a rumor that there may be more Star Wars movies.

    I never thought that I would have been given two more trilogies!

    And I never thought that both would have been so inferior to the original trilogy.

    I am one of the few people that actually don’t think that the prequels were horrible. But, there was still a level of disappointment with some of the quality and characters in that trilogy.

    So, I was happy when I heard that they were going to make episodes VII, VIII and IX. I never thought that we would have received another trilogy, and even with some of the original trilogy actors.

    And I never would have thought that a sequel trilogy would have been worse than the prequels.

    We’ve groused more than a little about The Force Awakens (twice, here and here) and The Last Jedi. The question is, did Star Wars IX: The Rise of Skywalker rise to the occasion, or did it manage to sink the entire trilogy once and for all?

    The third installment in a trilogy always has a heavy burden; it has to wrap up loose ends of its two predecessors, and it also has to provide a gratifying conclusion. The Rise of Skywalker (hereafter RoS) had a galaxy’s worth of work to do, especially since the middle installment The Last Jedi contributed so little to this trilogy. Thus, RoS had to make up some narrative ground lost by its dismal predecessor.     Rather than review the entire movie, I’ll just mention a few pros and cons, and then compare this film to the other two third installments, namely, Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith.

    First, Rise of Skywalker is a far better installment than episodes VII and VIII. Inserting Billy Dee Williams back into his role as Lando Calrissian was great, but the head fake about killing Chewbacca as he is was flying away in a First Order transport was cheap. Rey traveling to a moon in the Endor system and investigating the throne room of the destroyed death star was interesting, but how this room survived the destruction portrayed at the end of Return of the Jedi leaves us scratching our heads. Reintegrating Palpatine back into the story was good; having C-3PO dramatically sacrifice his memory only to have it given back a few minutes later was lame.

    Implausibility permeates these films. We wrote a whole article about plot holes and points of implausibility in The Force Awakens in the December 2016 edition. There are not as many here in RoS, but we’ll mention a few.

    It seems unlikely that with so little Jedi training Rey is able to heal the cave snake on Pasaana, and then Kylo Ren after they fight on the remains of the Death Star. An implausibly large number of Star Destroyers are pictured at the beginning of the film and are then featured in the battle of Exegol at the end of the movie. In contrast, we see an impressive, but much smaller fleet at the Battle of Endor (maybe two dozen?) at the end of Return of the Jedi, and we see several in the battle at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith. It is hard to imagine in any galaxy that the amount of Star Destroyers here in RoS would have been available to Palpatine. Speaking of the battle at Exegol, I wonder how Lando was able to gather an implausible number of ships to help in this final battle when Leia was able to summon exactly none at the end of TLJ. It must be that Calrissian charm!

    After watching this movie, I can officially declare that the third installment in each of the three Star Wars trilogies is my favorite film of each trilogy. Though many people don’t like the Ewoks, but I have always been a Return of the Jedi guy; a great film, terrific music, and a dramatic ending. We recently watched Revenge of the Sith again. Beside some corny dialog between Anakin and Padme, it is actually a solid movie with a compelling opening sequence and a dramatic ending. It ties up loose ends fairly nicely in the last few minutes and has some great fight scenes.

    Similarly, RoS had a lot of ground to cover. It was my least favorite third-installment of the franchise, and the conclusion of my (by far) least favorite Star Wars trilogy. But it accomplished what it needed to and managed to wrap up this trilogy relatively well.

    So, what did you think about Rise of Skywalker or of this final Star Wars trilogy? Send your thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll print them anonymously in a future edition.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Rushing to Judgment

    What we see happening today in our society is not merely the divergence of two parties, or two worldviews, but the development of two completely different Americas.

    On Monday, February 3, Rush Limbaugh announced during the last ten minutes of his three-hour syndicated radio show that he had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. The next day, during President Trump’s State of the Union address, Rush received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    The day after the State of the Union, New York Democratic U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was one of many Democrats who criticized this decision. “First of all, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is an extraordinarily sacred award. We’re talking about putting someone on the same level as Rosa Parks, for example, in terms of their contributions to American progress.”

    Misunderstanding Rush’s frequent sarcasm and irony, AOC called him a “virulent racist.” By the way, Limbaugh’s long-time producer, “Mr. Snerdley,” whose actual name is James Golden, is African-American.

    On the February 5 episode of Conan, the late-night host suggested that the Presidential medal of freedom used to be “a very hard thing to get,” and then noted that Mother Theresa and Rosa Parks also received this award. Believing that Trump had cheapened this award by granting one to Limbaugh, Conan O’Brian decided to distribute (fake) presidential medals of honor to his audience, including to a (fake) “racoon in the rafters.”

    Regarding how “sacred” or rare this award is, perhaps AOC and Conan should check their facts. President Regan gave this award to 102 individuals, George H. W. Bush awarded it to 43 people, Bill Clinton gave it to 90, George W. Bush gave it to 82, and President Obama awarded it to 123 people (that’s over 15 per year). To call them “a very hard thing to get” is not very accurate.

    Other Medal of Freedom winners include Aretha Franklin, Roger Staubach, Paul Harvey, Lucille Ball, Johnny Carson, and Bill Cosby. These individuals were on our TVs or radios for many hours, and had some influence on our lives. There were many lesser-known and even obscure recipients of this award, including entertainers, politicians, poets and scientists. The point is that these particular individuals and the high amount of individuals who have received this award undermines the notion that it is rare or “sacred.”

    AOC compared Rush to Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks took a stand . . . once. And she did it by sitting. She came under fire, and faced her moment with bravery and then continued to be a symbol of opposing racial oppression, and we can certainly respect her for that. After the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott, she continued to be involved in the anti-segregationist movement. But in terms of actual accomplishments, I wouldn’t even put here up there with some of our most accomplished athletes and entertainers.    In contrast, Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio three hours a day for most days since he began to be nationally syndicated in 1988. A “conservative” estimate comes out to around 20,000 hours on the airwaves. You may not agree with him, but only an idiot with a political bias or a critical lack of brains would suggest that he has not been influential or doesn’t deserve this recognition.

    Rush, like Trump, is no Boy Scout; he’s been divorced twice, and occasionally consumed by one controversy or another. Some may consider him to be occasionally over-the-top, but those are often the kind of people who don’t get his irony and satire, which are sometimes needed to make a point in a society increasingly dumbed-down by political correctness.

    Since 1988, he regularly draws between fifteen to twenty million listeners. Additionally, he had a TV show for three years, and has written several best-selling books, including books about American history geared toward children. He has done charitable work for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, the Tunnel To Towers Foundation, and for the Marines. In light of all of this, Rush may be one of the most deserved and influential recipients of the medal of freedom.

    And of, course, there is the elephant in the room. In 2001, Rush announced that he was almost completely hearing impaired; his cochlear implants were clearly visible the night of the State of the Union address. And, again, the day before the State of the Union, Rush announced to his radio audience that he had recently been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer.

    The fact that Democrats, comedians, and naïve congressmen like AOC don’t have the class, sense or courtesy to withhold criticism of Rush basically tells you everything you need to know about the Democratic party. They gripe about the lack of civility in politics; well, that’s a two-way street. They lampoon Rush for his satirical wit and lambast Trump for his quirky tweets. But then they vilify an influential and well-loved individual with a potentially fatal condition because he received an award from the president. Imagine what would happen if a conservative did that.

    Democrats and socialists want a classless society. It seems that attacking Rush just two days after he announced that he has advanced lung cancer is one of the most classless things they could do!

    Like we said at the beginning, the last few years are demonstrating not merely two different points of view on politics and culture, but two different Americas. I’ll let you determine which one is better for the future of our country and which one is dominated by fools.

ON MY BOOKSHELF: Is the Rapture Real? Part 2

    We continue to discuss David Currie’s book Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind. Currie is a former Fundamentalist who converted to Catholicism, and he decided to take on several doctrines about the last days, especially the rapture. We’re giving his book a thorough treatment because it is a thorough book. It is, also, thoroughly wrong.

Notions about Numbers:

    We mentioned above that Currie lays out some interpretive “Ground Rules.” Unfortunately, some of these rules amount to bad hermeneutics, or bad Bible study techniques. His “Ground Rule 2” is that “Numbers are Symbols,” that is, “Numbers in prophecy denote a symbolic meaning that trumps any empirical value” (57). He suggests that this is true for all Biblical literature: “We must remind ourselves of this ground rule every time we read a number in the Bible” (59). One would think that assuming a symbolic value for every number we read would skew most passages in Scripture, even in apocalyptic literature. This is a dreadful and unsustainable way to read the Bible.

    He also confuses an estimate with a symbol (58). Round numbers do not mean that a number is symbolic; they can still be literal numbers. Luke 3:23 notes that Jesus was “about thirty” when He began His public ministry, though He was probably closer to 33 or 34. The estimation does not indicate a symbol, but simply an approximation (see other examples of this in Exod 12:37; 1 Sam 9:22; 13:15; 14:14; 22:2; John 19:39; 21:8; Acts 1:15; 13:18; Rev 16:21).

    Currie is willing to use some numbers with “intentional flexibility” (116). He even admits that some numbers “possess the aura of actual historical time” (259) when they appear to correspond to his interpretative agenda. Specifically, Currie likes the 42 months of Rev 11:2, because they allegedly fit the duration of the first Jewish war from February 67 AD to August 70. However, this war did not, as Currie believes, end when Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus; most people recognize that the First Jewish Revolt ended with the siege of Masada in April of 73 AD, which would be closer to 74 months rather than 42.

    His lunge toward symbolism with numbers spirals him into a circular argument on more than one occasion. Regarding the mention of an army of 200 million in Revelation 9:16, Currie asserts that this “is almost universally understood as a symbolic number” (256). Why? “Clearly, no army that size could have existed in the ancient world.” Currie assumes that this is a symbolic amount because it is not plausible that an army that big existed in the ancient world; therefore, the number must be symbolic. It doesn’t cross his mind that this wasn’t supposed to be an ancient army. He never considers that an army of this size is very plausible today or in the future.

Searching for Symbolism

    In order to reinterpret everything to his liking, Currie, and others of his theological bent, have to interpret much of Revelation symbolically. This way of reading the Bible is haphazard, subjective, and it almost always gets you to whatever conclusion you want reach.

    Examples: The cloud around Mount Sinai is a symbol of God’s power (66), and the cloud during the Transfiguration symbolizes God’s glory (67). He never considers that these may simply be literal clouds. Currie claims that the comment about there being no sea in the new heavens and earth (Rev 21:1), indicates that since the sea symbolized Gentiles in the OT, this means that there are no unbelievers in heaven (329). While I also affirm that there will be no unbelievers in the new heavens and earth, I don’t think that that is the intention of this comment about the sea.

    Symbolic interpretation means that you can read into the text your own theological agendas. Zechariah 2:11, a verse about God dwelling in the midst of his people is, for Currie, a clear reference to the Eucharist (437), the preferred Catholic label for communion or the Lord’s Table. He even asserts that Revelation itself is a very Eucharistic-centered book (437). Despite the lack of clear references to the rite of communion, he whimsically inserts the idea of Eucharist into every statement regarding a meal (such as Rev 3:20 and 19:9). In all these cases, he is compromising the clearer meaning of the text out of a desire to cram in his Eucharist-oriented agenda.

    He often interprets something symbolically when it is clearly not necessary to do so. Currie believes that Revelation uses the water that flows out of the temple to symbolize the Holy Spirit (444). The Euphrates River being dried up (Rev 16:12) is symbolically reminding us of the Hebrews crossing the Red sea (317). The rider on a white horse in Rev 19:11-15 “symbolizes Christ’s victory over the Sanhedrin” (334). Yet, could this not just be Christ literally intervening dramatically into human history in the end of times? Currie also states that Resurrection isn’t really actual physical resurrection, but rather, apocalyptic literature uses this imagery to describe spiritual renewal or rejuvenation (346).

    So, what about all of the dramatic apocalyptic imagery? What about the sun being darkened and stars being thrown down (Isaiah 13:10; Joel 2:10, 31; Rev 6:12-13; 8:12)? For Currie, the answer is easy: “Apocalyptic prophecy repeatedly uses heavenly disruptions to describe political upheavals” (177). Falling stars, a blood-red moon, and earthquakes are just metaphors for political and international strife.

    After a lengthy discussion of Revelation chapters 6-11, Currie asks rhetorically, “Is there really anything in this vision that was not already fulfilled in the events surrounding 70 A.D.?” (275). While he expects a negative answer, I emphatically respond, “yes.” In fact, there is little in Revelation 6-11 that has been literally fulfilled in any period of human history! To dismiss it all as symbols is to do a disservice to God’s Word.

    The ultimate problem here is that if everything is a symbol, we never know what it is a symbol of. We are left to our own interpretative guesses, and even then we wouldn’t know if we were right or not. Furthermore, if everything is a symbol, then where do we go to find reality? Apparently not the Bible. To interpret Revelation this way seems to take most of the bite out of this book.

Speculation is Reality:

    On top of the problems with rampantly symbolic interpretations, Currie makes definitive calls on aspects of apocalyptic literature that are still highly debated. He argues that the little horn in Daniel 7:8 is Caesar Nero (92), and that the “Great Tribulation” only refers to the persecution of the church under Roman Emperor Nero (246). He asserts that “Oil in the New Testament is usually a symbol of the Holy Spirit” (194); however the NT never states that oil represents the Holy Spirit.

    The rainbow of Rev 4:3, Currie claims, symbolizes God’s eternal promises; while this may or may not be true, I prefer to believe that the rainbow mentioned in the throne room scene in Revelation 4 is an actual rainbow, and probably a rainbow, the likes of which mortals have never seen! It is both more accurate, more beautiful, and far more exciting to adopt a literal meaning than always punting to a symbol.

    In another example Currie baselessly claims that the second trumpet indicating a great burning mountain being thrown into the sea (Rev 8:8) symbolizes the destruction of the Hasmonean dynasty during Nero’s day (250). Yet, there is not clear evidence of this. Regarding the locust army in Rev 9:3, Currie states that this “quite obviously” is the Roman cavalry marching on Jerusalem (253), a view that is not quite as obvious to most other people.

    There are places in the Bible and especially in apocalyptic literature where we can afford to be less certain and less dogmatic in our interpretation. Currie throws hermeneutical caution to the wind and lunges at speculations that he promotes with far more certainty than he should.

    Wow, looks like I’m going to need a part three of this article, where we will discuss the problems with Preterism and also the ways in which Currie’s interpretation is skewed by his Roman Catholic perspective. We’ll provide “Part 3” to you in the next edition, and I think that you will find it fascinating!