Eschatology and Cultural Engagement

One of the most frequent complaints against premillennialists is that they lack a social conscience. The opponents of premillennialism charge that it is a pessimistic eschatology. It is supposed to bias its advocates against activities that aim to improve the world.

Often premillennialists have acted in ways that confirm this accusation. Most premillennialists believe that the world will become much worse before Jesus returns. Some have drawn the inference that social and cultural erosion is both necessary and irreversible. To work for the betterment of a social order is at best futile. At worst it is to pit one’s self against God’s plan. As one wag asked, “Why polish the brass on a sinking ship?”

Why indeed? One answer might be simply that the ship’s captain wishes his vessel to go down with its brass gleaming. On the Titanic, the band played even when the musicians knew that the ship was irretrievably damaged. Their music was not meant to reverse the situation, but to remind people of something outside the doomed vessel. So might a premillennialist minister in a sinking world.

This is not the only answer, however. It is not even the best answer. Given a moment’s thought, it becomes apparent that an eschatological scheme does not necessarily have to dictate the degree or type of one’s social or cultural involvement. Indeed, a premillennialist and a postmillennialist (to cite extremes) may find themselves sharing comparable attitudes toward cultural engagement.

Before discussing how such disparate eschatologies can foster similar attitudes, however, it is necessary to note at least one way in which the attitudes may remain very dissimilar. It is this: the notion of social and cultural engagement is capable of being understood in quite different ways. A liberal and a conservative may both be deeply involved in the social, political, and cultural processes of their day, but the shape of their involvement will take quite distinct forms. This is equally true of Christian social involvement. Ron Sider and Jerry Falwell both addressed political and cultural issues, but their handling of those issues differed markedly. The point of the present essay is not to argue for the social ethics of the Left or the politics of the Right. It is simply to note that eschatology need not be the factor that determines whether Christians become engaged culturally and socially, or whether their engagement is on the Right or the Left.

How can both premillennialism and postmillennialism produce approximately the same social attitudes? Consider postmillennialism. As everyone knows, the genius of postmillennial eschatology is a belief that God’s people will exert such an influence upon human society that it will undergo gradual improvement. Eventually the rule of Christ through His people will be so complete that the world will experience a golden age, after which the Lord will return to usher in the eternal state.

Postmillennialism is commonly thought of as an optimistic eschatology, and in its broad outlines it is. The overall scheme encourages Christian involvement in social and cultural problems because that kind of involvement is just what will bring in the Kingdom. This overall optimism, however, does not alleviate a good bit of pessimism in particular instances.

Unlike the postmillennialists of a century past, contemporary advocates of postmillennialism tend to be rather chastened in their assertions. They no longer claim to be on the verge of bringing in the Kingdom. They no longer believe that the progress of the Kingdom is irreversible or uninterruptible. They have seen too many disasters result from overly enthusiastic efforts to establish the Kingdom.

The fact is that individual human societies have seen regress rather than progress. Western Europe once had a very Christianized civilization. It is now almost completely secular. Christian influences in America have been on the wane for more than a century. And, as most postmillennialists recognize, God does judge particular societies.

In the long run, postmillennialism promises an optimistic future. In the short run, however, the future may be nearly catastrophic. Who knows what cataclysm an individual society may have to experience in order to make its contribution to the overall improvement of humanity? Therefore, postmillennialism offers few or no short-term guarantees. Struggle as they might, Christians might find themselves slipping into another dark age. It has happened before.

Premillennialists face almost exactly the opposite situation. Their eschatology is generally considered to be pessimistic. Human society and culture is supposed to grow worse and worse until it is interrupted by the return of the Lord Jesus, Who will judge His enemies and forcibly establish His Kingdom of justice throughout the world. Faced with this pessimistic outlook, some premillennialists of a previous generation concluded that social and cultural activity is useless or worse.

In spite of this long-term pessimism, however, contemporary premillennialists find hope for short-term optimism. While they expect that the return of Jesus could be soon, they know that it may not happen for a very long time. They also know that history is filled with reformations and revivals. From these observations they infer that they could as easily witness an awakening as an apostasy. Even if human society is in a long-term, downward spiral, some short-term gains are possible. If Jesus does not return in the immediate future, then those short-term gains may be very important.

On the one hand are postmillennialists whose long-term optimism has been chastened and humbled. On the other hand are premillennialists whose long-term pessimism has been interrupted by short-term hope. Both parties find good reason to be involved in the entire world of human affairs. Faced with the immediate challenge of a secular world teetering between the Scylla of totalitarianism and the Charybdis of anarchy, they can both find reason to throw themselves into the task of articulating Christian solutions. The postmillennialist ought to be cautioned by fear of how much worse things could become in the short run. The premillennialist is encouraged by hope of how much better they could be.

The One Thing Needful Generally Neglected

Luke x. 42. Long Metre

Samuel Davies (1723-1761)

O, Was my Heart but form’d for Woe,
What Streams of pitying Tears should flow,
To see the thoughtless Sons of Men
Labour, and toil, and live in vain!

One Thing is needful, one alone;
If this be ours, all is our own:
‘Tis needful now, ‘twill needful be
In Death, and thro’ Eternity.

Without it we are all undone,
Tho’ we could call the World our own:
Not all the Joys of Time and Sense
Can countervail the Loss immense.

Yet, (O the Horrors of the Thought!)
The one Thing needful is forgot;
Forgot, while Trifles of an Hour
Our Love, and Hope, and Zeal devour.

Hurry, and Toil, and anxious Care,
The busy Life of Mortals share,
Till Death compels them to bemoan
Their Folly, when their Sands are run.

The Bliss of Heav’n they disregard,
Hell’s flaming Terrors rage unfear’d;
Eternity a Trifle seems;
Immense Realities are Dreams.

O Sinners! will you now return?
Or must I still your Madness mourn?
O will you now at length be wise,
And strive to gain the only Prize?

Great GOD! that powerful Grace of thine,
Which rous’d a Soul so dead as mine,
Can rouse these thoughtless Sinners too
The one Thing needful to pursue.

This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.