# "Left Behind" Fiction or Mythology?



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 6, 2008)

There is, to my way of thinking, a fine line between "Christian Fiction" and "Mythology." 

I'm just curious, what do you all think of the "Left Behind" series by Tim LaHaye? 

In my opinion, LaHaye crosses the line far too often. 



Any thoughts on this topic?
Or is this just a big  can of worms you'd rather stay away from?


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 7, 2008)

joshua said:


> It's really great _fiction_.



Some have questioned the quality of the series even on that level. I can't say since I've never read any of them.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 7, 2008)

Since the Left Behind series promulgates false doctrine over and over, shouldn't it be considered worse than Christian fiction?


----------



## Grymir (Feb 7, 2008)

fantasy is what i would say. even from a dispensational background. though not anymore.


----------



## Shane (Feb 7, 2008)

I remember Paul Washer in a sermon saying "The only thing left behind in the "Left Behind" series is the Bible"
I think he is right. I read them all exept for the last one when I was newly saved out of Catholicism and very confused looking for a spiritual home.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Feb 7, 2008)

*Literal heremneutics...a true catagory for interpretation??*

I answer that: They are mythic, an example of literal hermeneutics (what ever that means) gone bad - when there is no attention to genre and "context carryover" (I am borrowing this term) anything goes.

I am more and more convinced that the term literal with reference to biblical interpretation may not be a biblical catagory - any thoughts?

John,


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 7, 2008)

Eschatology Disneyland style. Fun for the whole family.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Feb 7, 2008)

Rubbish


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 7, 2008)

I listen to James Macdonald's podcast several time a week. He generally has some very good sound and practical teaching. However, this week it's Dispensational, you better support those people who call themselves Israel week. I getting to where I can't tolerate this tripe for a second.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 7, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> I answer that: They are mythic, an example of literal hermeneutics (what ever that means) gone bad - when there is no attention to genre and "context carryover" (I am borrowing this term) anything goes.
> 
> I am more and more convinced that the term literal with reference to biblical interpretation may not be a biblical catagory - any thoughts?
> 
> John,



I wouldn't agree that the concept of "literal interpretation" isn't a category of hermeneutics, but I would agree that dispensationalism is not literal. When it invokes the term it actually means, more often than not, contemporary reference. Hence, swarm of locusts becomes Apache helicopters because, it is supposed, that is what John would have called that not knowing what helicopters were - and everyone reading along nods their head in agreement (yeah, we interpret Revelation "literally" not like those error filled Amill's or Postmills who interpret it allegorically.)

But I better not comment a lot more on it, as I tend to get in trouble when I criticize dispensationalism.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 7, 2008)

The first one was okay, if you consider it like sci-fi, but it's not the best sci-fi I've ever read, the rest aren't even good fiction or mythology, In my humble opinion.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 7, 2008)

And have you seen the movies? Pee-ewe! Some major stinkage happening there. 

I don't understand the attraction.


----------



## SueS (Feb 7, 2008)

My dd was given several volumes of the set - she read them but didn't really get into them. They sat on her bookshelf for several years after she got married and several weeks ago (with her permission) they went away - not to GoodWill, but to the dump. Why subject others to that tripe?


----------



## Josiah (Feb 7, 2008)

Ive read many of them (with the exception of the last book) and there were things I read in the books that made my former dispensational eyebrow raise.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 7, 2008)

OK, full disclosure. I read them all and enjoyed them at some level, even though I do NOT share their eschatology (not a pre-trib). But, hey, I love Grisham too. No accounting for taste in literature.

[BTW, there are dispis and there are dispis. Progressive dispensationalists such as Saucy, Bock, and Blaising should not be tarred with the wide brush of Hal Lindsay.]

"Literal" is a shibboleth. The more correct term is historical-grammatical. As to literal, when someone asks R.C. Sproul "You don't take the Bible literally, do you?" he answers: "Why of course. How else could you possibly take it?" Even if you reject premill views of eschatology, don't surrender the good term "literal" or find yourself attacking literal interpretation. 

What differentiates dispensationalism in its many forms from non-dispensationalism has to do more with the notions of the covenant, relations between the testaments, and therefore with the understanding of Israel and the Church. It is not as if amill/postmills are "allegorical" and dispensationalists are "literal."

I may have more sympathy for the _Left Behind _folks than some of you do. As a lifelong evangelical, I still make common cause with all who affirm the fundamentals of the faith, even when their list of essentials is a bit shorter than mine. People like Jerry Jenkins affirm the diety of Christ, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, resurrection, second coming, and eternal state. I can handle disagreeing with them on the details of their eschatology and continue to work with folks like that to teach them the doctrines of grace. A couple of my kids graduated from Moody Bible Institute where Jenkins used to work and where the Left Behind view dominates. Frankly, In my humble opinion, it is a lot easier to move people from a position of full commitment to the Word of God into a better theological understanding than it is to undo the corrosive damage of some of our sophisticated Christian liberal arts colleges and their rabid anti-Calvinist positions. All of my kids graduated with a love for the Lord and his Word. Interestingly, my son who went to a Christian liberal arts school known for a more Arminian approach is the most resistant to Calvinism. The Moody kids, full of their dispensationalism, found the transition a pretty easy one.

Currently I am teaching a series of lessons to a group of 30-somethings on TULIP (yes, using powerpoint). They act as if it is an ephiphany. The relentless logic of Owen on the atonement made for some interesting discussions. Some of these folks are on the boards of our church. In time, the seeds planted will bear fruit.


----------



## etexas (Feb 7, 2008)

I read most of them, mostly to show the flaws to those would embrace the ideas they promoted. I am not sure where I would "lump" them as far as genre, I feel they are in terms of literature quite bad.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Feb 7, 2008)

Even back when I basically held to the Dispensational pretrib premil I still thought these books were ridiculous.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 7, 2008)

Try Back Free Church - Sermons and Studies - Reflections on Various Subjects 5


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 7, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Since the Left Behind series promulgates false doctrine over and over, shouldn't it be considered worse than Christian fiction?



Yes. I agree! I have only read one in the series, and that was more than enough! I think of it as mythology.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 8, 2008)

Those books made me realize there was something very wrong with the Dispie view.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 17, 2008)

**BUMP**

Perhaps Mr. Reed has something to add to this discussion now that he has joined us?


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 17, 2008)

No matter what genre they are, they are not good literature In my humble opinion.


----------



## David_A_Reed (Feb 18, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> **BUMP**
> 
> Perhaps Mr. Reed has something to add to this discussion now that he has joined us?


Thank you for the invitation.

I'd say the most serious problem with the novels, is that LaHaye in all seriousness declares that he and his co-author 


> believe what we have portrayed here will happen someday. -- author's note in _Kingdom Come: The Final Victory_, pages 355-356


...and so many of his fans take him at his word and believe it, too.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 18, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> No matter what genre they are, they are not good literature In my humble opinion.



Crawford Gribben - the author of _Rapture Fiction_ - agrees with you there.


----------



## David_A_Reed (Feb 18, 2008)

There are so many things wrong with the _Left Behind_ novels that it would be easy to fill many books listing all the errors. Some of them are truly ridiculous, such as these passages in _Kingdom Come: The Final Victory_ (the same volume where a note from LaHaye says all of this "will happen someday")where the characters come upon literal streams of milk flowing down the side of a hill, and literal streams of wine, collecting in pools of milk and wine that they can drink from, in supposed fulfillment of Joel 3:18 ...



> "the streams had become pure white milk. Having only half finished his meal, Rayford knelt and cupped both hands in the white cascade."
> 
> "There, gushing down the mountainsides were deep purple channels, collecting in great, beautiful pools below."
> 
> - page 13



Apparently he forgets that the promise to the Israelites of a "land flowing with milk and honey" did not mean they would find streams of milk and streams of honey literally flowing down the hills of the Promised Land.

But the most serious error -- promoted throughout by the entire series of novels -- is LaHaye's teaching found also in his nonfiction works such as _Are We Living in the End Times?_ (page 158) that those "left behind" because they had "rejected God's offer of salvation" will get a _Second Chance_ (the title of volume 2 in the kids series).


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 18, 2008)

Remember that Dave Hunt's screed against Calvinism, "What Love is This?" contains the following endorsement by LaHaye . . .

”Dave Hunt… proves Calvinism is not a Protestant doctrine, but is based in Greek fatalism brought into the church in the fifth century by Augustine, paving the way for the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of predestination that all but destroyed Christianity and then was picked up by Calvin and presented as Reformed theology.”

I enjoyed the books in their own way but thought the style was not literature and the theology was seriously deficient. LaHaye's soteriology, for example, yikes!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 18, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Remember that Dave Hunt's screed against Calvinism, "What Love is This?" contains the following endorsement by LaHaye . . .
> 
> ”Dave Hunt… proves Calvinism is not a Protestant doctrine, but is based in Greek fatalism brought into the church in the fifth century by Augustine, paving the way for the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of predestination that all but destroyed Christianity and then was picked up by Calvin and presented as Reformed theology.”



 What excellent scholarship


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 18, 2008)

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/256_257.pdf

WHO REALLY OWNS THE LAND?


----------



## Blue Tick (Feb 18, 2008)

Mediocre fiction under the guise of Christian Theology= "False Profit"


----------



## Herald (Feb 18, 2008)

Blue Tick said:


> Mediocre fiction under the guise of Christian Theology= "False Profit"


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 18, 2008)

David_A_Reed said:


> There are so many things wrong with the _Left Behind_ novels that it would be easy to fill many books listing all the errors. Some of them are truly ridiculous, such as these passages in _Kingdom Come: The Final Victory_ (the same volume where a note from LaHaye says all of this "will happen someday")where the characters come upon literal streams of milk flowing down the side of a hill, and literal streams of wine, collecting in pools of milk and wine that they can drink from, in supposed fulfillment of Joel 3:18 ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mr. Reed:

Thank you for your addition to this thread. I am looking forward to reading your book.


----------



## queenknitter (May 24, 2008)

I've always equated them to "The Munsters" -- silly sit-com-like writing that is like a train wreck.

C


----------



## HaigLaw (May 24, 2008)

Shane said:


> I remember Paul Washer in a sermon saying "The only thing left behind in the "Left Behind" series is the Bible"
> I think he is right. I read them all exept for the last one when I was newly saved out of Catholicism and very confused looking for a spiritual home.



If anyone reads them and gets motivated to read their Bible more, then God gets the last laugh.

Otherwise, their primary effect was to breath new life into dispensationalism, which had since 1988 lost substantially all its intellectual respect. Dispensationalism now has new life in pop culture, due to this series.

And its author and publisher have made billions on it for their religious-right causes.


----------



## HaigLaw (May 24, 2008)

This is a very important point from Dennis:



DMcFadden said:


> "Literal" is a shibboleth. The more correct term is historical-grammatical. As to literal, when someone asks R.C. Sproul "You don't take the Bible literally, do you?" he answers: "Why of course. How else could you possibly take it?" Even if you reject premill views of eschatology, don't surrender the good term "literal" or find yourself attacking literal interpretation.
> 
> What differentiates dispensationalism in its many forms from non-dispensationalism has to do more with the notions of the covenant, relations between the testaments, and therefore with the understanding of Israel and the Church. It is not as if amill/postmills are "allegorical" and dispensationalists are "literal."



 Most evangelicals don't know the difference between "literal interpretation" and literal inspiration. The historical-grammatical hermeneutic includes many figurative usages, such as figures of speech. And there is much figurative interpretation in dispensationalism.


----------



## calgal (May 24, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> No matter what genre they are, they are not good literature In my humble opinion.



They are like harlequin romances (aka penny dreadfuls) with less content.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (May 24, 2008)

If the movies can be played on Chinese state television (which is my only acquaintance with the series), then there can't be much Christian about them.


----------



## nicnap (May 24, 2008)

joshua said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...


----------



## nicnap (May 24, 2008)

calgal said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > No matter what genre they are, they are not good literature In my humble opinion.
> ...



 THAT was great.


----------



## HaigLaw (May 24, 2008)

Abd_Yesua_alMasih said:


> If the movies can be played on Chinese state television (which is my only acquaintance with the series), then there can't be much Christian about them.



I don't know whether to laugh or cry! 

One of the most dominant evangelical theologies of the 20th century -- and Chinese communists don't even regard it as a Christian threat!


----------



## etexas (May 24, 2008)

HaigLaw said:


> Abd_Yesua_alMasih said:
> 
> 
> > If the movies can be played on Chinese state television (which is my only acquaintance with the series), then there can't be much Christian about them.
> ...


Sorry, but....Chuckle!


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (May 25, 2008)

Then again I also remember shopping where that big earthquake in China was, through a major shopping mall, hearing "Amazing Grace" loud and clear over the radio system. Such a special moment. It means a lot in places like that, but little back here in the west.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (May 25, 2008)

Can't take it anymore....what in the world does In my humble opinion mean?! 

Thanks.

Daniel


----------



## TimV (May 25, 2008)

In my honest opinion

Internet Acronyms Dictionary


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (May 25, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> Can't take it anymore....what in the world does In my humble opinion mean?!
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Daniel



I thought it was: "in my humble opinion"


----------



## DMcFadden (May 25, 2008)

It is both: The source cited gave both "In My Humble Opinion" and "In My Honest Opinion." I always use it as "In My Humble Opinion" unless it is not so humble and then write "in my opinion."


----------

