Suspended Disbelief
Near the beginning of the book Wilson asks the reader to suspend their disbelief. This willing suspension of disbelief is something that any reader of fiction must do in order to enter into the story. In other words, one can't really get into The Lord of the Rings (for example) without momentarily disregarding the non-existence of orcs. If you can't suspend disbelief in orcs or elves or dark lords, every page you read you will be thinking to yourself, "... well, there is no such thing..." and there will be no suspense for the heroes of the story as they face off against any made-up enemies. On the other hand, if the reader suspends that disbelief, they open the door for an entering into the story in a way that they could not do otherwise.
Wilson recommends doing this sort of disbelief suspension for his book because (I think) he knows that the majority of his readers will have been brought up in a particular doctrinal understanding of the Over-Arching Story of the Biblical drama which will conflict with what he is presenting. He also knows that they don't know that they were brought up in any doctrinal understanding, but that they think that what they were brought up believing is what any sane Christian believes (which isn't true) and he doesn't want anyone reading this book and thinking, "yeah right..." on every other page.
In other words, if one goes into a book like this, ready to argue every point along the way, it becomes increasingly difficult to grasp the larger picture. And the proof isn't in the ingredients, the proof is in the pudding. The suspension of disbelief will allow you to take in all of the ingredients, let them blend and boil, and then cool into a nice pudding before you really taste it.
I can say all of this now, but to be honest, my own willingness to suspend disbelief didn't happen overnight.
Where it Started
About 20 years ago a notion turned into an idea: I just couldn't get away from it, there was a general sense of energetic optimism that seemed to saturate the New Testament. I'm not going to try to prove this to you, I suspect you probably know what I'm talking about. Those writers seemed to think that Christ was now King, that His kingdom had begun, that he was now seated at the right hand of the father and was given all authority (Matthew 28:18), and that through the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 24:14), the world would come to know Him. They seemed to think that he really would reign from the right hand of the father until all of his enemies were defeated (Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42–43; Acts 2:34–35). The final one being death (I Corinthians 15:25-26).
I've included some scripture references here for the sake of phrases... but that isn't what captured me. There was a general sense of potential success I found when reading the New Testament. I couldn't figure it out. Why were they so confident? Why did they seem so sure of the success of the mission, if in the end it would be a total washout? I knew the explanations, but the explanations didn't jive with my general reading of the Bible. More specifically, my eschatological view was only visible when I went looking for it: My regular reading of the scriptures didn't leave the same taste in my mouth as the view I had been taught.
Where it was Going
Then one day I learned that the eschatological view I had been taught didn't exist until the late 1800's. This wasn't a defining moment, but it was like the tip of the first domino in a line of dominoes. Not a proof of anything in and of itself, but it opened the door to other possible interpretations. I started asking myself if 1,800 years of Christians could have been wrong. And then, what did the Reformers believe? Where did the Puritans stand? What about the Church Fathers? Especially those closest to the writing of the New Testament: Where did they stand?
It was in this state of mind that I watched a video called An Evening of Eschatology. Here it is, if you'd be interested in watching it:
This video, moderated by John Piper, presents three eschatological views in a round-table debate format. The three views represented at the table are Historic Premillennial, Amillennial, and Postmillennial... meaning that the view I had grown up with wasn't even at the table. This video affected me in three ways: (1) It served as an introduction to these other beliefs. (2) It emphasized that none of these three beliefs were heretical... that they weren't breaking any rules of Biblical interpretation which would deem them absolutely false by means of their inception or construction, and (3) It demolished my old view completely.
I can still remember watching that video the first time and marveling at how succinct their explanations were. Even though these three views weren't in agreement, they were all much more direct and understandable than anything I had ever heard before. I can recall thinking to myself, "huh... huh! ...this actually makes sense!" Nobody had to break out the bulletin board covered in note cards with scripture references and red yarn connecting all of the dots. Nobody had to say, "Well actually, if you connect this verse with this verse and side track it through this verse (all ignoring their respective contexts), then you can clearly see that this means something that you'd never have seen taking this at face value." And even if I didn't agree with their assessment, I couldn't get away from the idea that they still made perfect sense, even if they disagreed.
I recently compiled a list of authors, pastors, and speakers who have had an impact in some form, either directly or indirectly, on my theological and doctrinal convictions. I sorted the list according to the 4 views of the end times. I shared it on X and it got a bit of attention. I share it here again because I want to emphasize the reality that these other views are believable and have been believed by many a trustworthy theologian.
 |
| Click here to see the entire spreadsheet. |
I might as well point out that the shortest column of my personally influential theologians was the Dispensational column. But what surprised me the most was the column that ended up being the longest: I had assumed that the Amillennial view would have held the smallest number of adherents, but I was wrong, it was by far the longest. Again, a list like this proves nothing, but it should also not be dismissed as irrelevant.
Two more Dangling Chads
Besides that initial interest in the Gospel Optimism of the New Testament writers, there were two other issues that crept in near the beginning of my Pastoral ministry. Long before I watched that debate, these two issues were present in my mind, but tarried in the realm of vague curiosities. Once my old eschatology was destroyed, and I was "up in the air until we were all up in the air", these two issues resurfaced demanding answers.
The first one was the role of Israel and the Church. Under my Dispensational upbringing, I had believed that there was Israel and then there was this interim of the Church while Israel was in the doghouse, but one day God would be moved with compassion again toward Israel. He would do this, even if for no other reason than the fact that there were all of these unfulfilled promises he had keep. Those promises would then be fulfilled during the 1,000 year millennial reign of Christ. For all of this to happen, there would need to be a re-established nation of Israel, a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and for some reason, a red heifer. This all sounded so fantastically amazing except for one thing... I kept reading the New Testament over and over again and it sure seemed like there was no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile (Rom. 10:12). That not all Israel are Israel (Rom. 9:6) and that I was now as much a child of Abraham (Gal. 3:7,29) as the Apostle Paul. And that I would be an actual inheritor of the promises (Gal. 3:29 & 2 Cor. 1:20)!
I am, of course, not attempting to build an argument for this here, but I am trying to say that there was a general discomfort with those dispensational views which stemmed from my regular reading of scripture. It was a big-picture question that was standing at the back of my consciousness, occasionally saying, "a-hem" or coughing during those awkward silences of the mind. I knew that proof-texts from Jerry B. Jenkins wouldn't silence this question any longer.
The second issue was one of prophetic expectancy. When Daniel was given visions about the end, he was told to seal them up until the end (Dan. 12:4), but John's book was then opened at the end (Rev. 5:1-2). In fact, when John wrote Revelation, he explicitly says that these things were "soon to take place" at the beginning of the book and at the end of the book (Rev. 1:1 and Rev. 22:6). When John told us about the antichrist (which he actually doesn't mention in Revelation), he told us it was the last hour and the fact that there were already antichrists in the world is how we could know it was the last hour (1 John 2:18). A couple of chapters later he actually says about the spirit of the antichrist: that it was something,.. "...which you heard was coming and now is in the world already" (I John 4:3). The Apostle Paul talked about The Day being at hand (Rom. 3:12) and implied in many places that we might see the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4:1) and considered that Timothy may be encountering things to happen in the last days (1 Tim. 4:1 & 2 Tim. 3:1).
Again, I am not attempting to list a series of proof texts to convince anyone of anything. I figure that much of what I am saying has crossed your mind as well because much of what I am referring to has actually been a reality in the deconstruction of the faith of many. We might want to turn our heads away from it, but many have struggled with this reality... Those writers seemed to think something was going to happen soon. Jesus even expressly mentions this in his Olivet Discourse, stating plainly, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34, ESV) Was he wrong? Was he confused? Was this a result of him not knowing the "day or the hour"? Why would he make a statement like that?
Another Brick in the Wall
These were the three main questions I had in my mind when I watched that eschatological debate: (1) Why were the gospel writers so optimistic about our mission? (2) Why did Paul talk about Gentile me as a full-fledged heir of the Kingdom? and (3) Why were the New Testament writers, especially Jesus, expectant of something happening soon? For many, these would not present themselves as eschatological questions... but these are actually at the very heart of the eschatological point. Our eschatology is less about the timeline of the very final days of late, great planet earth, and more about those Gospel of the Kingdom questions.
Into these questions two theologians entered into my life. The first one was D.A. Carson. A few years back I listened to a series that he taught on Revelation that altered my approach. The series he does never gets to the eschatological and prophetic explanations, but is simply an unpacking of the book itself. His expertise and knowledge of Biblical Literature and the unique handling of the apocalyptic genre present in Revelation was one that I will never forget. What I gained from him laid the groundwork for any understanding challenging texts: The first question being, "what did this mean to those original recipients?" The Scriptures were written... but they were actually written! They were letters written to people. We might be reading them, and they were definitely written for us... but they were not written to us.
The other theologian was R. C. Sproul. When I finally came across his series called, Crisis in Eschatology, I was ready to go. He taught through the Olivet Discourse within the framework of the context. In the Gospel Narrative, The Olivet Discourse was actually an answer to a question that the disciples asked Jesus. Sproul unpacked Jesus' answer as an answer to that question. The result is a more theologically consistent understanding of this prophetic discourse.
The debate had cleared out the old structure, Carson staked out the ground and poured the footers, and Sproul laid the foundation. My questions were ready to be answered and I knew that this new building would be full of Gospel Optimism for the Kingdom that Christ preached. With this in mind I picked up Heaven Misplaced again and devoured it. My disbelief had been suspended, not simply as a purposeful mental exercise in order to consider his presentation, but as a reality in my own mind.
The End.
Now... I think he might be right. I think that the Gospel ought to be optimistic. I think that the Kingdom will win in the end. And I think that all of His enemies really will be defeated through the power of the gospel... with only the final one to be put down upon his return. At that time, we will go out to tell Him that He has won the City. We will meet him in the air with all those who have gone before, and then we will return to live in that city for all eternity as he makes all things once and for all, new.
If you are reading this and thinking, "yeah... right..." then I would like to encourage you suspend your disbelief and read this book. If nothing else, I hope you might read it and think, "That'd be nice. I wish it was true."
.jpg) |
| Heaven Misplaced: Christ's Kingdom on Earth |
In the meantime... while I am trying to figure out what to do (since we might be here for awhile), I am reading this:
 |
| Angels in the Architecture: A Protestant Vision for Middle Earth |
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
