What do you think?
Rate this book
Left Behind or Left Befuddled: The Subtle Dangers of Popularizing the End Times
The extraordinary success of the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins shows that their action/adventure novels have tapped into the American psyche. It has revived our fascination with vivid images of the book of Revelation and other biblical the Antichrist, the mysterious number 666, and people suddenly raptured into the sky by God. But is there something dangerous behind the thinking in these books and how they play out in our world today? In Left Behind or Left Befuddled, Gordon Isaac takes the reader inside the theology behind the series. In clear and accessible prose, Isaac answers many important questions that Christians have about the phenomenon that is Left Behind.
176 pages, Paperback
First published July 15, 2008
3 people are currently reading
15 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 19, 2021
It is quite eerie how this 2008 book about dispensational premillennialism could be tweaked slightly and actually be about evangelical embrace of conspiracy and Q anon... I’m kind of convinced now there is a direct line between “Left Behind” theology and the Jericho March. This book is pretty harsh towards an unbiblical, extremist doctrine and theological-political approach but honestly probably isn’t harsh enough given what has happened to church in the decade since it was written.
Read
May 2, 2025VERY good!
October 31, 2024
This is a fine introduction to Dispensationalism and its dangers. It is factually correct and it's an easy read. If you are new to the discussion, or just want a refresher, I would recommend this book. If you have been around for a while, there are books that offer more in depth critiques.
March 2, 2011
Left Behind or Left Befuddled / 978-0-8146-2420-3
I have read and enjoyed several scholarly books on the "Left Behind" phenomena, and am an avid reader of Fred Clark's Slactivist page-by-page treatment of the series, but I feel strongly that this book is a very poor addition to genre and I do not recommend it.
I am not usually pleased when a scholarly work defines itself largely in rhetorical questions, and much of this book devotes itself to that format. Isaac asks "What are we to make of this? Well, author so-and-so says..." and "What are we to think about this other? Well, church authority whats-his-name believes...". In his first chapter alone, Gershom Gorenberg is quoted on almost every page, and we hear more of his opinion than we do of Isaac's! What is somewhat worse, based on the blandness of Isaac's opinions and assertions, I find myself wishing I was reading *more* of Gorenberg, and not less. This lackluster approach to scholarship ('I have nothing much to say, so I'll quote people who do') is something I expect more from a first-year student being forced to write a book report over something that failed to resonate with them.
When Isaac does start throwing down facts and opinions of his own, his 'facts' are shockingly incorrect. In the very second chapter, he boldly claims that "early Christians" took the writings that we now refer to as The Revelation of John as "a predictive description of the drama to take place at the end of time. For them, the millennium [of a messianic kingdom] was regarded as quite literal". The only way to explain this 'scholarship' is to assume that Isaac slapped this book together from a Tyndale House press release and called it a day. The very idea that "early" Christians (How early? What kind of scholarship is this that we aren't even talking about dates and time periods?) interpreted Revelations in the same sense that LaHaye and Jenkins now do is extraordinarily wrong.
To just assert that "early Christians" believed *anything* at all without any kind of sourcing or material isn't scholarship, it's dogma. Isaac not only disagrees with volumes of scholarly study that indicate that the apocalyptic literature in question could have (and likely was) written as a source of encouragement to the early Christians as a metaphorical representation of their own, current struggles in an effort to avoid trouble if the writings were seized ('We didn't say that *your* kingdom would fall, sir, we were talking about a kingdom in the future. Yeah, the future, exactly.')... well, that kind of omission isn't just bad scholarship - I'm tempted to call it lying.
I note, belatedly, that Isaac's credentials on the subject sum up to being an Associate Professor at a Seminary. I don't like to cast aspersions based on credentials, but I can't help but feel that this shoddy, lack-luster approach is not something I would expect from an affiliate of an accredited university - someone who would be expected to actually back up their writing with clear opinions and well-researched facts, rather than wild mass quoting and bald assertions of facts not in evidence. The only thing positive I can think to say of this book is that at ~150 pages, it is at least short. Though, on reflection, book reports usually are.
~ Ana Mardoll
I have read and enjoyed several scholarly books on the "Left Behind" phenomena, and am an avid reader of Fred Clark's Slactivist page-by-page treatment of the series, but I feel strongly that this book is a very poor addition to genre and I do not recommend it.
I am not usually pleased when a scholarly work defines itself largely in rhetorical questions, and much of this book devotes itself to that format. Isaac asks "What are we to make of this? Well, author so-and-so says..." and "What are we to think about this other? Well, church authority whats-his-name believes...". In his first chapter alone, Gershom Gorenberg is quoted on almost every page, and we hear more of his opinion than we do of Isaac's! What is somewhat worse, based on the blandness of Isaac's opinions and assertions, I find myself wishing I was reading *more* of Gorenberg, and not less. This lackluster approach to scholarship ('I have nothing much to say, so I'll quote people who do') is something I expect more from a first-year student being forced to write a book report over something that failed to resonate with them.
When Isaac does start throwing down facts and opinions of his own, his 'facts' are shockingly incorrect. In the very second chapter, he boldly claims that "early Christians" took the writings that we now refer to as The Revelation of John as "a predictive description of the drama to take place at the end of time. For them, the millennium [of a messianic kingdom] was regarded as quite literal". The only way to explain this 'scholarship' is to assume that Isaac slapped this book together from a Tyndale House press release and called it a day. The very idea that "early" Christians (How early? What kind of scholarship is this that we aren't even talking about dates and time periods?) interpreted Revelations in the same sense that LaHaye and Jenkins now do is extraordinarily wrong.
To just assert that "early Christians" believed *anything* at all without any kind of sourcing or material isn't scholarship, it's dogma. Isaac not only disagrees with volumes of scholarly study that indicate that the apocalyptic literature in question could have (and likely was) written as a source of encouragement to the early Christians as a metaphorical representation of their own, current struggles in an effort to avoid trouble if the writings were seized ('We didn't say that *your* kingdom would fall, sir, we were talking about a kingdom in the future. Yeah, the future, exactly.')... well, that kind of omission isn't just bad scholarship - I'm tempted to call it lying.
I note, belatedly, that Isaac's credentials on the subject sum up to being an Associate Professor at a Seminary. I don't like to cast aspersions based on credentials, but I can't help but feel that this shoddy, lack-luster approach is not something I would expect from an affiliate of an accredited university - someone who would be expected to actually back up their writing with clear opinions and well-researched facts, rather than wild mass quoting and bald assertions of facts not in evidence. The only thing positive I can think to say of this book is that at ~150 pages, it is at least short. Though, on reflection, book reports usually are.
~ Ana Mardoll
December 7, 2013
This is an extremely brief addition to the wide swath of Left Behind critiques. While reading it, one gets the sense that Isaac feels as though much of the important critique has already been said, so why bother repeating it? This can be good (it makes for a short read here), but it can also leave the reader wanting more. I've read many books on the subject, and Isaac does rehash some familiar themes: the over-reaching hermenuetics of a "literal" biblical prophecy interpretation, the emotional/fear-based manipulation of prophetic evangelism, and the dangerous political implications of "Left Behind Theology" in the Middle East. These can all be read about in numerous commentaries on Revelation, and various responses to the Left Behind books themselves.
Isaac does manage to offer two very helpful things here that I have not seen summarized so clearly in other works. First, his overview of the history of millenial theology, and its transition into dispensationalism, was profoundly simple and helpful. Second, he provides a wonderful chapter that focuses specifically on the social factors which have led our culture into widely adopting a fatalistic/premillenial view. Both these aspects of this short book add important insights into a complicated discussion. Overall, I would recommend this to people who are familiar with the general theological responses to dispensational thought, but if you are new to this field of scholarship, I would start somewhere else then come back to "Left Behind or Left Befuddled".
Isaac does manage to offer two very helpful things here that I have not seen summarized so clearly in other works. First, his overview of the history of millenial theology, and its transition into dispensationalism, was profoundly simple and helpful. Second, he provides a wonderful chapter that focuses specifically on the social factors which have led our culture into widely adopting a fatalistic/premillenial view. Both these aspects of this short book add important insights into a complicated discussion. Overall, I would recommend this to people who are familiar with the general theological responses to dispensational thought, but if you are new to this field of scholarship, I would start somewhere else then come back to "Left Behind or Left Befuddled".
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews