I've studied fundamentalism and its theology for many years. I've also been very interested in the variations on the theme that might be called "end time movments." These theories extend back to the earliest centuries of Christian thought and down into our present, extremely perplexing times. No matter the shape or tradition that defines your faith, it seems to me that Sutton's analysis below is worth reading. As always, I welcome your responses.
I wonder how many Americans are aware of the linkages?
Why the Antichrist Matters in Politics
By MATTHEW AVERY SUTTON
Published: September 25, 2011
THE end is near — or so it seems to a segment of Christians aligned with the religious right. The global economic meltdown, numerous natural disasters and the threat of radical Islam have fueled a conviction among some evangelicals that these are the last days. While such beliefs might be dismissed as the rantings of a small but vocal minority, apocalyptic fears helped drive the antigovernment movements of the 1930s and ’40s and could help define the 2012 presidential campaign as well.
Christian apocalypticism has a long and varied history. Its most prevalent modern incarnation took shape a century ago, among the vast network of preachers, evangelists, Bible-college professors and publishers who established the fundamentalist movement. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and independents, they shared a commitment to returning the Christian faith to its “fundamentals.”
Biblical criticism, the return of Jews to the Holy Land, evolutionary science and World War I convinced them that the second coming of Jesus was imminent. Basing their predictions on biblical prophecy, they identified signs, drawn especially from the books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation, that would foreshadow the arrival of the last days: the growth of strong central governments and the consolidation of independent nations into one superstate led by a seemingly benevolent leader promising world peace.
To read the entire article click here.
8 comments:
I think the Muslim threat and the over-reach and over spending of Washington is a greater threat than Christians. I never see you write about any of these.
The End Times outlook of far too many fundamendalist Christians is ominous, and leads to very bad policy. Destroy the Earth - who cares, we're going to heaven; support Israel at all costs no matter what - we want to usher in the Second Coming; Justice here on Earth - don't bother, just promise them heaven; and on and on. And all based on an extremely shaky, sometimes bizarre view of the Bible.
Anon whoever: There is no 'Muslim threat', there is a fundamentalist Muslim threat. Islamic cultures and followers are not a monolith, any more than Christians are monolithic and all agree. And everyone agrees at this point that Washington is overspending - the only question is how to bring it down, and whether it is essential to raise more money (i.e. taxes) as well as cut spending in order to balance the budget. But what this has to do with the topic at hand -Christian fundamentalists - is beyond me.
Ken
Dallas
Ken, if it makes you feel better to call the Muslims who are a threat fundamentalist, then fine. There are fathers who murder their daughters, a Christian in Iran who may be hung and many instances like this. No matter what you call them, they are Muslims. Ask Europe if they are a threat. I don't recall Jews doing things like this in recent times. Jews have contributed so much to the world as opposed to Muslims, in spite of what Obama said.
I don't subscribe to the "last days" theory but it's typical of the libs to talk negatively about Christians instead of the real hatemongers.
I'm happy to 'talk negatively' about Muslim extremists, just not Muslims in general as though they were all in this category. I also think people should be more aware than they are of Christian extremists, a few of whom are presently on the presidential campaign trail. They may not be engaged in terrorism, but being in the White House would give them control of the largest military in the world. With their sometimes bizarre worldview, that's really scary. As for Jews, their hands are hardly clean when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians.
All 3 monotheistic religions have made great contributions to learning and culture at times during their histories. Christianity and Islam have also made things hell on earth at times - the Inquisition, the Crusades, religious civil wars (Catholic/Protestant; Sunni/Shia), modern terrorism.
In all three cases we are dealing with very fallible people. None of the 3 is all good and none is all bad. But we need to be aware of the bad in all to be ready to curb the excesses when possible.
Ken
Dallas
So which presidential contender do you consider extreme and bizarre? Couldn't be worse than someone who sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years.
Let's see: Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, for starters. You don't have to worry about who they did or did not listen to - they embarass theselves and spark fear among reasonable people almost every time they open their mouths, all in their own words. Perry's not far behind them. In this regard though he's not as scary as a real religious extremist, though, because I don't think anyone really thinks he's very sincere.
But in R circles the candidate doesn't have to be a religious extremist to worry about the impact extremism may have on them, since most of the R candidates unfortunately pander to the religous right. But better one who is simply buying a few votes than a true believer in some truly nutty notions.
Ken
Dallas
So what beliefs of the two ladies are extreme?
Just a small sampling:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/16/246618/bachmann-craziest-quotes/
These are not necessarily religious, but illustrative of the crackpot ideas both hold. And some - like Bachmann's suggestion that Melissa Etheridge got breast cancer because she's a lesbian - certainly have religious underpinnings.
Post a Comment