Scriptural Politics

Rather than translating βασιλεία into “kingdom,” “reign,” or “kin-dom,” I translate it into “empire” from the perspectives of postcolonial and decolonial theories. Unlike the traditional biblical translation, “kingdom,” liberation theologians have translated βασιλεία into “reign” focusing on the utopian hope of the present history. However, scholars have highlighted that βασιλεία can also be translated into an aggressive term: “empire.” The imperial implications of βασιλεία become invisible when people refuse to translate βασιλεία into “empire.” Thus, instead of romanticizing βασιλεία, I argue that ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν should be translated into the “Heavenly Empire” with imperial implications in the Gospel of Matthew. By reading the Heavenly Empire’s arrival (Matt 25:31–46) from the perspective of my Taiwanese context with sensibilities shaped by postcolonial and decolonial theories, I argue that the Heavenly Empire’s arrival is not a hope. Rather, it provides an imperial/colonial proposal of occupation, slaughter, justification, and separation.

Hal Lindsey is arguably the most influential American biblical interpreter of the last fifty years. His *The Late Great Planet Earth* was the #1 non-fiction bestseller of the 1970s, his popularization of dispensational premillennialism shaped American evangelicalism, and his advocacy affected national politics. While Lindsey’s work shaped the popular American religious imagination, his actual biblical interpretation has received little scholarly attention. Yet Lindsey’s work addresses a question that has vexed historians: why did a religious movement rooted in biblical predictions of judgment and destruction, awaiting a “rapture” from the earth, spend so much time and energy in politics? This paper examines the progression of Hal Lindsey’s influential books *The Late Great Planet Earth* and *The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon* to understand the way that biblical texts, especially prophetic and apocalyptic texts, can motivate political activism.

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was dubbed “America’s Refugee Capital” in 2016, due to its large resettled refugee population. The area leans politically conservative and is steeped in a unique heritage of Anabaptist Christianity that has permeated the culture and people for 300 years. The positive attitude towards refugee welcome appears to be nonpartisan; however, there is some variance in motivations for this refugee-welcome activity. Qualitative interviews were conducted with leaders of eight congregations and faith communities in Lancaster County to elicit perspectives on their community’s motivations for its involvement in refugee welcome and resettlement activity. The results yielded varied theological motivations and scriptural bases, including a tendency for self-identified conservative communities to lean into eschatological or evangelical language, while moderate to progressive communities more frequently mentioned the life and teachings of Jesus. How can these distinctions help and hinder continued refugee resettlement by faith communities in the current political climate?