Toward the end of the Second Great Awakening in the nineteenth century, the church witnessed the emergence of several new religious movements—some of them making rather extraordinary claims. Among the most recognizable figures and movements from this period are Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), Charles T. Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), William Miller (Adventism), Ellen G. White (Seventh-day Adventism), Joseph Smith (Mormonism), and John Nelson Darby, who systematized and popularized dispensational theology along with the concept of a pre-tribulational rapture. Pentecostalism and several of its offshoots can also be traced to this general timeframe.
I was raised within one of these denominations, though I left it as a young man.
The church in question has its roots in the mid-1800s and grew out of what has come to be known as the Great Disappointment. This event refers to the experience of a group of nineteenth-century Millerites who became convinced—through their interpretation of biblical prophecy—that Christ would return on October 22, 1844. Their conviction was so strong that many gave away possessions and left crops unharvested, fully expecting the imminent return of the Lord.
When Christ did not return as predicted, the result was profound disappointment. Many adherents returned to the churches from which they had come, attempting to rebuild their lives. A smaller remnant, however, remained together, unwilling to concede error. Instead, they maintained that the date had been correct but that they had misunderstood the nature of the event itself.
Over time, as this remnant developed into an organized denomination, its theology also evolved. While many beliefs common to historic Christianity were retained, a number of distinctive and sometimes peculiar doctrines emerged. Central to this development was a strong emphasis on eschatology and the Second Advent. In fact, it can be said that the denomination’s views on the second coming became fixed early on, with subsequent theological beliefs forming around this core conviction.
I believe it is impossible to understand the points I wish to address without acknowledging this historical background. We are all shaped by our histories and circumstances, and this process is not unique to the denomination in which I was raised. Across Christianity, we find denominational distinctives and theological assumptions that are widely accepted and rarely questioned. In some cases, such views are read into Scripture rather than drawn from it.
I left my church in my early twenties. At the time, I did not realize how deeply its unique blend of end-times views, doctrinal distinctives, and theological assumptions had shaped my understanding of both the church and Christianity as a whole. I only began to recognize this many years later, after accepting the gospel message and systematically re-examining my earlier teachings in light of Scripture.
That vetting process continues to this day, particularly in areas I describe as “missing but unavoidable.” By this I mean doctrines that are not typically classified as essential for salvation yet remain both important and impossible to ignore. Many of the beliefs I was raised with fall into this category, differing significantly from positions held by most evangelical churches. Where possible, I feel compelled to examine these issues carefully, continually seeking greater scriptural clarity.
Recently I encountered a saying online: “If you continue to carry the bricks from your past, you will end up building the same house.” This resonated deeply with me. Having left the church of my youth, I effectively moved out of the old metaphorical house and wandered—“homeless”—for quite some time, unwilling to settle elsewhere. Eventually, however, I became ready to build again—but not to reconstruct the same uninhabitable structure I had abandoned.
At the same time, I have come to realize that not all the bricks from that old house should be discarded. Some are worth preserving. The challenge lies in discerning which bricks should be kept, which should be replaced, and what should take their place. That process must begin with the foundation, and the only solid foundation is biblical truth. The core beliefs of Christianity—the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God, and Christ’s kingship—must form the footings. Secondary to these, yet still grounded in Scripture, are the teachings and doctrines that developed over time within the early church.
This is the puzzle I have been working through, to varying degrees, since returning to Christianity.
Missing but Unavoidable Questions
There is no broad, unanimous agreement within the church on many of these issues. As a result, such topics are often avoided or dismissed as secondary because they are not considered essential for salvation. Yet in some denominations these same topics are treated as doctrinally significant, making it impossible to simply set them aside.
Even when disagreements exist primarily at the individual level, they can still be divisive. Secondary or not, these matters are far from trivial. Scripture speaks to them, and they shape how individuals understand life, purpose, suffering, and what lies beyond death. I do not believe they can be ignored or handled carelessly without consequence.
So how should one proceed? It seemed reasonable to me that any firmly held belief—especially one newly encountered—should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. I had no desire to replace one erroneous belief with another. Any view rooted in long-standing assumptions or imposed interpretations must be tested against the actual text and context of Scripture. Where beliefs conflict with the scriptural data, the beliefs—not the text—must be reconsidered.
Although this approach appears rational, I was surprised by how frustrating it often proved to be. Many people claim openness until their own beliefs are questioned. Even those who profess to hold views loosely can respond defensively when those views are carefully examined. It is not uncommon for individuals to reject truth when it contradicts deeply held assumptions. For this reason, the journey can be a lonely one.
Heaven, Hell, and the Second Coming
What happens at the end of human life? Few questions are more unavoidable, and yet there is little agreement. Beliefs about death, heaven, hell, and what lies beyond the grave profoundly influence how people live. Churches’ positions on these matters shape their mission, priorities, and use of resources.
Regarding hell—specifically the notion of eternal conscious torment—I will address this and other related topics more fully in essays which follow this one. In brief, however, I reject the traditional view and instead affirm conditional immortality (often called annihilationism). According to this view, following final judgment, the wicked are judged, punished and destroyed. At that point, they will cease to exist. This understanding, I believe, aligns more faithfully with Scripture.
Many problematic views of both heaven and hell appear to have been influenced by lingering Neoplatonic and Gnostic ideas, especially the dualistic separation of soul and body. This influence is evident in the historical development of Christian theology, particularly through Augustine and later medieval thought.
I believe heaven is real. The confusion lies in when and how it relates to humanity. Do souls go there immediately? Is there a rapture? A millennium? If so, when? How does all of this relate to Christ’s promised return?
For a time, I embraced pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture theology. I studied it extensively, but over time I became increasingly dissatisfied. The system, in my view, fails to withstand close scrutiny of Scripture and relies heavily on assumptions imposed upon the text. Other millennial views have their own strengths and weaknesses, raising the question: are we allowing Scripture to speak for itself, or are we forcing it to fit our systems?
Eventually, I realized that belief in Christ’s return and in a New Heaven and New Earth does not require adherence to any of these systems. As Michael Heiser has noted, theological systems often end up controlling interpretation rather than serving it. Scripture must remain primary.
Creation, Redemption, and Restoration
From the beginning, God created humanity for life on earth. Humans were formed from the dust and animated by God’s breath, commissioned to steward creation and exercise dominion. Scripture consistently portrays God’s intention to unite heaven and earth—not to abandon one for the other.
Human rebellion introduced sin and death, affecting all creation. Yet this fall was anticipated, and God’s plan of redemption encompassed not only humanity but the entire cosmos. Creation has always been moving toward restoration, not abandonment.
Jesus entered history to repair what sin had broken. Through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, He fully accomplished that mission. He has commissioned His followers to proclaim the gospel and He promised to return—not to evacuate the faithful, but to reign. At His return, the dead will be raised, the living transformed, judgment executed, and creation renewed. Heaven and earth will be made new and joined together, and Christ will reign forever.
Amen.
First published February 2023, revised December 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment