L.B.: yes I said yes I will Yes

Left Behind, pp. 213-217 (take two)

Stories of religious conversion -- or "testimonies," as we evangelical types call them* -- can be tricky. The convert wants to tell this story because she is convinced that it is important. Very important. But also deeply personal and, at some level, ineffable. Attempts to convey the ineffable often come across as kind of effed up.

I noted earlier (see "Explicit Content") how this mix of the transcendent and the intimate can lead conversion stories to resemble pornography:

Religious ecstasy, like sexual ecstasy, is difficult to portray directly in a work of art. It is too intimate, sacred and transcendent -- and any portrayal that fails to respect that will seem reductive and cheap. A good artist knows when to fade to black (or, as in Dante's "Paradiso," to fade to white), when to suggest rather than to show, when implicit metaphor will be more truthful than explicit detail.

"Fire," Pascal wrote at the time of his conversion. "Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy."

Frederick Buechner writes of hearing a preacher speak about "the coronation of Jesus in the believer's heart":

... this coronation ... took place among confession -- and I thought, yes, yes, confession -- and tears, he said -- and I thought tears, yes, perfectly plausible that the coronation of Jesus in the believing heart should take place among confession and tears. And then with his head bobbing up and down so that his glasses glittered, he said in his odd, sandy voice, the voice of an old nurse, that the coronation of Jesus took place among confession and tears and then, as God was and is my witness, great laughter, he said. Jesus is crowned among confession and tears and great laughter, and at the phrase great laughter, for reasons that I have never satisfactorily understood, the great wall of China crumbled and Atlantis rose up out of the sea, and on Madison Avenue, at 73rd Street, tears leapt from my eyes as though I had been struck across the face.

It's not always a matter of fire and crumbling walls, of course. Dag Hammarskjold's description of his conversion seems a bit more restrained:

I don't know Who or What put the question, I don't know when it was put. I don't even remember answering. But at some moment, I did answer Yes.

Anne Lamott cites that in her book Traveling Mercies, in which she also relates her own "beautiful moment of conversion":

I hung my head and said, "Fuck it: I quit." I took a long deep breath and said out loud, "All right. You can come in."

Re-read all of the above examples but imagine that the topic is not religious conversion. Imagine that each is, instead, one of those little video interludes in When Harry Met Sally in which some charming old couple is recounting how they first fell in love.

The testimonies all make sense when read this way because, after all, this is what they are: people recounting how they fell in love. Disregard that love and such stories are meaningless. They become merely accounts of people going through the motions without context. They become pornography.

All of which brings us to Rayford Steele's strangely anticlimactic conversion in the pages of Left Behind, which reads less like the testimony of someone falling in love than it does like the testimonial of someone who is very pleased with his new insurance policy.

Like many conversion scenes, this one is intrusively intimate, making the reader feel like a voyeur. It affords little respect for the idea that something transcendent might be occurring, and it offers no meaningful context suggesting that what we are peeking at through the blinds is ultimately an act of love. What keeps it from being purely a piece of spiritual porno is the authors' earnest hope that this scene should also serve as a kind of instruction manual. This mix of the pedagogical and the prurient reminds me of those omnipresent ads for the Better Sex Video Series. (I haven't seen any of those, but the ads make them seem like porno for people who don't like porno, except presumably with a different, er, concluding shot.)

Anyway, when we left off with Rayford, he too was watching an instructional video and he was just getting to the good part near the end:

If what the pastor said about the disappearances was true -- and Rayford knew in his heart that it was -- then the man deserved his attention, his respect.

It was time to move beyond being a critic, an analyst never satisfied with the evidence. The proof was before him: the empty chairs, the lonely bed, the hole in his heart. There was only one course of action. He punched the play button.

So, filled with this newfound resolution to take decisive action, Rayford resumes watching the television screen. The Rev. Vernon Billings crams in a few more paragraphs of boilerplate from his Summer Prophecy Conference lectures, which LaHaye and Jenkins seem to regard as a kind of foreshadowing. And I suppose it is a kind of foreshadowing -- at least if, say, reading the Cliff Notes plot outline of a book before reading the book itself counts as foreshadowing.

The Antichrist, Billings warns, "will rise up soon" and "will deceive many." He notes that the book of Isaiah says:

... the kingdoms of nations will be in great conflict and their faces shall be as flames. To me, this portends World War III, a thermonuclear war that will wipe out millions.

The passage Billings cites, Isaiah 13, was written for a people still reeling from their conquest by the Babylonian Empire. The prophet is essentially telling them, "Don't worry, one day Babylon will get what is coming to it." The King James Version, which Billings quotes, foretells that Babylon will become a desolate place where "owls shall dwell" and "satyrs shall dance" and "the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces." All of which, perhaps, might be open to interpretation as something other than an explicit prediction of global thermonuclear war. (I suppose satyrs and dragons could be immune to radioactive fallout, but I'm fairly sure owls are not.)

"Millions" also seems like a low-ball estimate for the death toll in a thermonuclear World War III -- but maybe Billings is discounting due to the elimination of the entire Russian nuclear arsenal during the failed Russo-Ethiopian sneak attack on Israel described earlier in the book. That event left the world with only one nuclear superpower, and it's not clear why Billings thinks that superpower would launch WWIII by attacking Babylon -- but then real-life events have demonstrated that said superpower is more than willing to launch a war against Babylon for no apparent reason, so maybe we'll give Billings a pass on that one.

"Bible prophecy is history written in advance," Billings says, and then offers up one last burst of this pre-history:

You'll find that government and religion will change, war and inflation will erupt, there will be widespread death and destruction, martyrdom of saints, and even a devastating earthquake. Be prepared.

Billings advice for what it means to "be prepared" is as vague as his description of the calamities to come. Given the grim outlook of his advance history, it's hard to imagine what "being prepared" would mean other than fleeing for the hills and getting really, really drunk (not necessarily in that order).

With his next breath, Billings begins his sales pitch for salvation. Neither Rayford nor the authors seem to regard this as abrupt, but I was rubbing my neck from whiplash, squinting and flipping pages back and forth looking in vain for some hint of the jarring transition:

God wants to forgive you your sins and assure you of heaven. Listen to Ezekiel 33:11: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."

I've got to give some style points here for the use of Ezekiel. Apart from his references to "Gog" and "Magog," I didn't expect L&J to have read much of anything by this psychadelic, R-rated prophet.

It's kind of refreshing to see an evangelical altar call that reaches beyond the usual greatest hits of John 3:16 and the "Romans road," and it's a bit startling to see such an aggressively Arminian** passage cited. But it's especially startling to see this passage cited here, in the pages of Left Behind. LaHaye and Jenkins clearly do take "pleasure in the death of the wicked" and they consistently seem to imagine and to portray God as enjoying and savoring it even more than they do.

"You can become a child of God by praying to him right now as I lead you," Billings says, and Rayford presses the pause button to think for a moment.

... he knew that he needed Christ in his life. He needed forgiveness of sin and the assurance that one day he would join his wife and son in heaven.

Rayford sat with his head in his hands, his heart pounding. ... He was alone with his thoughts, alone with God, and he felt God's presence. Rayford slid to his knees on the carpet. He had never knelt in worship before, but he sense the seriousness and the reverence of the moment. He pushed the play button and tossed the remote control aside. He set his hands palms down before him and rested his forehead on them, his face on the floor. The pastor said, "Pray after me," and Rayford did.

What follows is L&J's distillation of "the sinner's prayer." Prayers are sometimes referred to as "invocations," but this one seems to be an invocation in more than one sense. It seems almost an incantation -- like saying "Bloody Mary" three times into a mirror. If you are not a Christian and do not want to become one, you might want to be careful not to read the following aloud:

Dear God, I admit that I'm a sinner. I am sorry for my sins. Please forgive me and save me. I ask this in the name of Jesus, who died for me. I trust in him right now. I believe that the sinless blood of Jesus is sufficient to pay the price for my salvation. Thank you for hearing me and receiving me. Thank you for saving my soul.

Left Behind is crammed with heresies, heterodoxies and the sorts of tortured interpretations one winds up with when one starts with the idea that the main theme of the biblical prophets was to record an advance history of a thermonuclear war in one's own lifetime. But here L&J are mostly theologically sound. I might prefer something a bit more elegantly worded -- something like the good old "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed" -- but I have no quarrel with the essential elements of this prayer. (Although I would eliminate the bit of catechism on substitutionary atonement they've inserted. Either it's a separate matter not needed here, in which case it can be omitted, or else L&J think that a particular understanding of the workings of atonement is needed here, in which case it really ought to be omitted.)

It's not the words of the prayer that seem troubling here, but rather the implication that these words must be spoken, this invocation must be invoked, or else God's hands are tied. Wrapped up in that implication is also the suggestion that this incantation is somehow sufficient for salvation. That's not simply Arminian, or even Pelagian -- it's spellcasting.

Billings says, after the prayer, that "If you were genuine, you are saved." But "if you were genuine" seems here to refer to saying these words with the proper sentiment, the proper earnestness, the proper pounding heart and the "seriousness and the reverence of the moment." It's hard to imagine "genuine" meaning anything else when it is only "the moment" that matters.

The meaning of the moment depends on a larger context over time, which is yet another reason that stories of religious conversion can be tricky. I like to hear people tell stories about the moment they fell in love, but the real meaning of such stories depends on the rest of the story that follows.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Many Christians -- myself included -- have stories that do not fit neatly into the somewhat formulaic trope of a standard evangelical "testimony," which tends to disappoint, confuse or anger those who request to hear them. When confronted with the question "When were you saved?" I like to borrow the response that theologian Stanley Hauerwas uses: "2,000 years ago, give or take."

** "Arminianism" holds that -- nevermind. Soteriological disputes strike me as the tedious and un-useful arguments among blind men about whether an elephant is more like a tree or a rope. The idea that soteriology -- speculation about how grace works -- is itself of much importance strikes me as, well, very bad soteriology. I am not God's math teacher and I don't need to see all the work.

Comments

[Barry]

I had to put Dictionary.com on overdrive to look up Arminianism, soteriological, Pelagian....

While I enjoy expanding my horizons as much as the next guy, maybe a little more explanatory text when tossing these heavy theological terms around might make the read a bit easier.

But other than that - spot on. Religious conversion "instruction" experiences like these I can remember from my childhood. It was all done in - ahem - good faith, and those instructors meant well, but simply saying "Jesus come into my heart" doesn't mean much unless the surrender is behind it. And ahead of it. Without the message of taking up our own crosses and following Jesus just asking forgiveness is the equivalent, to me, of my son saying "SORRY!!" when I call him down, even though I know he's just saying it to get out of trouble.

[sdf (Stu)]

At last! And as always worth the wait. It is this kind of salvation by rote spellcasting that makes present day fungelicalism seem so remote from what I imagine to be true Chrsitianity, as well as the pre-packaged nature of the salvation. The salvation by videotape echoes strongly with the "Six Flags over Jesus" diary that was up at dKos last night.

And, yes, the irony that they would quote Ezekiel "no pleasure in the death of the wicked" does smack one upside the head a bit. Are they really that unselfaware, that obtuse? (Rhetorical question, of course.)

[Lucia]

Definitely worth the wait. I am more and more convinced that if God(s) exist (on that point I stubbornly resist conviction one way or the other), He/She/They are much more interested in what we DO than in what we say or even in what we believe, except insofar as belief comes alive in action. (Mt. 25:31-46, again and as always.)

One of those fundawacko types I am always referring to said in a blog comment that having accepted Christ he could sit on his sofa watching TV for the rest of his days and still go to heaven. It still blows me away that anyone really believes that.

[jwhook]

One of the pastors at our church and I have been talking about this very issue, especially as it relates to inviting people to follow Jesus. There's no place in scripture where someone prays a sinner's prayer that I'm aware of, although we do see confession. More importantly we see response and change. The discussion is about how we remain faithful to making the invitation, but not make it rote, magical, or momentary.

To me, Levi's conversion experience is especially fitting in leaving the inexpressable unexpressed: "As He [Jesus] passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him."

[coriolis]

"The proof was before him: the empty chairs, the lonely bed, the hole in his heart. There was only one course of action. He punched the play button."
This is too precious. Between Dan Brown and these guys, I really think it is the End Times. Because doesn't the bible say that there will be wars and earthquakes and cats will live with dogs and brains will turn to mush?

[Axiomatic]

Coriolis, I'm pretty sure that of all the disasters and catastrophes predicted in Revelations, Bad Writing was not listed. Unfortunately for us.

[pat greene]

Fred, this is a great post, but that last comment "I am not God's math teacher, I don't need to see all the work" just blew me away. OT, it explains how I can believe in a God present in history and yet still reject intelligent design.

[rcriii]

"If you are not a Christian and do not want to become one, you might want to be careful not to read the following aloud:"

Thanks for that bit of consideration. It's almost as if, even though you do not know me you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt and respect my convictions, unlike two of our leats favorite authors.

[The Old Maid]

Where to start ...

Maybe just two points today. One for style points, and one for plot points.

On the subject of praying aloud ... a few weeks ago I happened to channel-surf upon a sermon on prayer by Dr. Frederick KC Price who is (I think) from the Word of Faith school. I didn't catch all of it; it was along the lines of "Life and death are in the power of the tongue," supported by how God created the world through speaking. That is, to be created in God's image, after God's likeness, means that in some ways we have power to influence reality through our words, more than in ways that we already know.

(It's also separate -- I think, and hope -- from a claim I heard as a small child that when you speak a bad word, phrase, idea, etc., it brings another little devil's helper to life. It was used to discourage "backtalk," but I knew people who took this claim very seriously.)

So Price proposed that a prayer should be spoken if at all possible; God would understand those who genuinely couldn't speak, but if one could, one should. (Price also mentioned that those who speak primarily sign language should do that too. He wasn't being snarky; it was a sincerity issue, God being worth such a little effort. And I think John and Charles Wesley opened their hymnal with a paragraph about not being ashamed to sing aloud the praises of God, since people hadn't been ashamed to sing "the songs of Satan" before they were saved.)

Finally, Price commented that Hannah (mother of Samuel) prayed silently but with her lips moving, and her prayer counted. Price suggested that this was as quiet as a prayer should get, but speaking it is part of what makes it prayer. Comments from the silent-prayer champions?

Two: Fun with Doomsday. The character Vernon Billings says that a big war 'o nukes is coming. Nukes do fly, but it's not really a World war so much as The Two Musketeers. (I had to look this up; it's convoluted. I'd call it /SPOILERS/, but does it count if you won't keep it straight when you get there?)

Lessee ... Volume 2 the paralyzed prez decides to go into action. He confides in the GIRAT Williams (who wouldn't?). Meanwhile the Antichrist confides in Rayford (who wouldn't?) not to go to work for a few days. Hijinks ensue on page 436, when an indeterminate "militia" "levels" Washington D.C. because The Big Bad was thought to be there. (He wasn't.) Amanda White Steele, usually a less insensitive character as Steeles go, breathes in horror, "We could have been killed!" Well, yes, but given that Rayford's boss (the aforementioned Big Bad) told him to stay away, the "coulda" wasn't as "shoulda" as it would have been. (Neither of them live in D.C., but I digress.)

Uh ... next we have the Antichrist's lackeys, called "Global Community" police/soldiers/guard/redshirts/Vader stormtroopers. (I'm not sure what they are; they're more competent in some exercises, and less so in others.) The GC lackeys "retaliate" (2:441) by "destroying a former Nike center in Chicago." Meanwhile a force of ground-pounders, presumed to be Egyptian, are marching (a long, long way) to (New) Babylon. The GC lackeys "eliminate" them.

Then the GC lackeys "advance" on England (2:442), also called Britain, also called The United States of Britain. "This may be a retaliatory strike for Britain's part in the American militia action against Washington, D.C." So, if I'm getting the names straight, the Brits/English/USBsers helped some rebel faction in the USA -- supposedly all that's left of The Paralyzed Prez's team -- level Washington. These Prez Players ... or somebody ... or maybe the baddies themselves, just lying about everything ... then threaten to nuke JFK Airport in NYC.

As Volume 2 closes, no nukes in DC. No nukes in Chicago. Tune in next volume to see if NYC gets it. Heathrow, however, gets a 100-MT last word dropped on their heads (2:449). So that's the end of the Brits, or whatever they're called in this world.

That took 13 pages. And they still made time for phone conversations. In comparison, Rayford's out-of-the-blue marriage to Amanda took 17 pages -- and Buck's pursuit of Chloe took about 600 pages, if you combine the end of volume 1 with the first 426 pages of Volume 2.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

So much goodness in this one little post! I am hard-pressed to decide which bit to celebrate first. I'll just highlight this quote right here:

So, filled with this newfound resolution to take decisive action, Rayford resumes watching the television screen.

Now that's comedy.

[jwhook]

Old Maid -

As someone who has responsibility for helping new Christians learn more about the Bible, their faith, and putting that faith into action, I encourage them to pray out loud, even if very softly. Nothing to do with speaking into reality, but more as a way to keep their minds focused. I know for me, in order to keep my mind on topic, when I talk to God, I talk to God.

- jw

[Kate]

Awesome post. I have a friend who is studying to be a minister who answers people with the 2000 year ago line as well. Slow and steady growth and realization doesn't make for good copy I guess...

To the Old Maid, here's my defence of silent prayer.

Matthew 6:6-8
6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

You don't nee to pray out-loud for God to hear you. I acknowledge that it's far easier to pray and to concentrate on prayer when you say it out-loud. I find it takes more focus to pray in silence and solitude as the mind wanders easily. But Jesus didn't instruct people to pray out-loud, instead he instructed them to pray, period. I don't see what issues people could have with silent prayer if you are following the teachings of Christ. Maybe this comes back to the faith vs. deeds argument, but I think that it doesn't matter how loudly I proclaim my prayers if I don't then live my life as if those prayers mattered.

Also I don't buy into the "words make reality" school of thought, and the following questions are why: How do you know that God created the world through speech? I can think words without saying them aloud, does God not have the same capability? If you don't know, and can't tell, then how can you be certain that you are emulating God when you pray?

[Edward Liu]

Kate sez: I think that it doesn't matter how loudly I proclaim my prayers if I don't then live my life as if those prayers mattered.

While I agree with you in principle, I think there's still a distinction between something you're willing to say in your head vs. something you're willing to say out loud. This is the reason why it's poignant to see someone silently pining for someone else but unwilling or unable to put his or her feelings into words -- it's easy to envision telling someone you love them in your head, but much harder when you're facing the reality of actually DOING it.

In any event, I don't think there's anything in the quoted passage of Matthew about silent vs. out-loud prayer. I always read it more as public prayer, which is done for the sake of other people, and private prayer, which is done for one's own sake. If you need to pray out loud in private, there's nothing in that passage of Matthew that will make you feel like a dork or less of a Christian for it, IMO. Similarly, if you're falling on your knees to pray on a streetcorner in front of dozens or hundreds of people just to show "I Love God THIS MUCH," it really doesn't matter if you're doing it in total silence.

Then again, I'm not a Christian, nor do I play one on TV, so my opinion on prayers ought to be taken with a grain of salt the size of an armadillo.

[PK]

Kate: Also I don't buy into the "words make reality" school of thought, and the following questions are why: How do you know that God created the world through speech?

'amar.

[Andy]

Last week someone left a pamphlet on the windshield of my rental car in Portland, Oregon, that contained a prayer that was almost EXACTLY the one shown here from Left Behind -- freaky! And I, too, marveled at the theology that suggests that all one needs to do is say one prayer and they are "saved." Somehow I think it's more complicated than that.

And as far as conversion stories go, mine is also intensely personal, and I've never shared it with anyone because it is, as you put it, so very intimate. But there was a clear moment in time when I actually recgonized the very real presence of God.

[The Old Maid]

Like I said, I didn't hear the whole thing, so I'm guessing there was some "And God saith, 'Let there be light' and there was" somewhere. If memory serves, C.S. Lewis had Aslan (the Christ figure) create the word through song.

I'd been brought up to believe in silent prayer/pastoral prayer/The Lord's Prayer as the appropriate form for collective worship. Then we switched, and switched again, and switched again, etc. and that's not counting the summer Bible camp that got me on someone's mailing list. Try being a six-year-old getting a piece of burlap in the mail from a pastor who quoted a scriptural verse that "if any two believers agree, touching anything" (because he touched the cloth & now it was my turn ... yes, there was something about "send money," but when I actually summoned the courage to write back, he insisted (or his computerized form insisted) that God must have a reason for putting us in contact. *eep*

I'm still a fan of silent prayer; it seems to me that the real requirement is that a prayer full o' bull is no prayer at all. And seems to me there was a scriptural verse about the Holy Spirit praying for us when we have no words.

Not that this means I don't agree with jwhook's approach. Sometimes there really is a difference between rehearsing a sentiment and speaking it.

I'm wondering if the preference for spoken prayer arose during the 1970s in reaction to trans. meditation. A lot of preachers back then would fight it by translating assorted eastern chants into English, then discuss it.

[Dave Lartigue]

"Now that he had seen undeniable proof, Rayford was ready to have faith."

[Merlin Missy]

I'm wondering if the preference for spoken prayer arose during the 1970s in reaction to trans. meditation.

I dunno. It always seemed a very Catholic thing to me. Everybody stands up and recites along, you learn the prayers and you only feel a little stupid for not knowing all the words.

[kate]

to Edward:
I mostly agree with you, but the difference is that I believe that when I pray silently, God still hears me. Therefore there isn't the silent pitiable repining, instead there is as direct a connection with God as can be found praying out-loud.

to PK:
First, I don't hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Secondly, I don't know that I believe that humans can understand or properly relay the scope and breadth of an act of God (and I do believe that we are completely insufficient in attempting to understand God himself), and so I don't know if a literal interpretation of the Bible is in any case wise when refering to an act of God. It could be that the word you reference in the Hebrew is as close as the scribes could come to what God was conveying to them as they wrote the Old Testament... there may be no word in human speech for the act of creation, or it could be that the words chosen conveyed the proper emotion of the act instead of the description of the act itself... there are many possibilities to choose between, none more or less supported than the others.

And I've just realized that my second point is just expanding on my first... d'oh!

[Mouse]

That's the basic prayer Jack Chick puts in all his tracts. I took a peek at a few pages and found myself having some fun disecting the book, though you do a much better job than I do, Fred. Just wait until you get to Rayford's and Hattie's conversation about abortion clinics. It makes you both want to laugh and scream at the same time.

[Scott]

Am I a bad person for wanting to buy the game, enter Antichrist mode, and blow away fundies? :-)

The Purpose Driven Life Takers
...The game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces, is based on scenes from the first four novels in the series. The game was developed by a publicly-traded company called Left Behind Games, according to SEC records. The developers obtained the license from Tyndale House, the Christian publisher of Left Behind.

Tyndale also publishes Bringing Up Boys and The Complete Marriage and Family Home Reference Guide by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, PhD. Mr. Dobson has advised parents to monitor the amount of time children spend playing video games and "avoid the violent ones altogether." But he has not yet stated his views on whether there should be an exception for video games that role play gunplay in the name of Christ, or of the AntiChrist.

Tyndale's licensing of the project infuriated one of its authors, Jack Thompson, a conservative Christian attorney and outspoken critic of video game violence, who told the Los Angeles Times that he severed ties with his publisher in a dispute over "Left Behind: Eternal Forces."

"It's absurd," said the video critic. "You can be the Christians blowing away the infidels, and if that doesn't hit your hot button, you can be the Antichrist blowing away all the Christians."

The firm's CEO is relying on network marketing through pastoral networks as a key part of his business plan...

[jwhook]

OM, Having said that speaking words of prayer can be helpful to focus one's thoughts, I want to agree with all who talked about silent prayer also. Complete silence, listening, meditation, and talking to God in our minds, with or without vocalization are all a part of what we commonly call prayer. And each practice can serve a purpose that others don't. As can our posture, position, attitude, and company.

I don't think there's any correlation between meditation in the 70s and a reaction to have spoken prayer. The Word of Faith preacher you referred to has a particular [bad] theology that is completely independent of mainstream teaching on prayer. In fact, it has a lot in common with other New Age teachings from the 70s.

[Jody]

Yes, thanks to people like Rick Warren, and Tim and Jerry we can all rest peacefully knowing our kids are playing good, clean, Christian video games.
Huh?
I knew Warren and the LB Twins were sick, twisted, and a little effed up, but this is the "undeniable proof" that should leave no one pondering the question of their effed-up-ness.

[Erick Oppeen]

I have noticed the whole "once you have faith, you're OK, even if you never lift a finger to DO anything" deal in other hardcore Fundamentalist stuff---Jack Chick's comics are full of that sort of thing.

As I understand it, a lot of that attitude is left-over from the Reformation; a lot of the original Reformers were pretty disgusted by the way that the Catholic Church made a lot of rather simple-minded people think that as long as you did "works" (i.e. gave to the Church) you'd go to heaven. "As soon as the coin in the coffer doth ring, the soul from Purgatory doth spring." Basically, the Catholics were saying that God was just another corrupt pol on the take.

[hf]

Comments from the silent-prayer champions?

Um, do you think you've given us an argument? One that requires refutation? Okay. If speech has magic powers -- in other words, if it uses some natural force that we don't know about yet -- then science could explain God as a self-sustaining spell or artificial intelligence (in occult terms, an egregore.) If you want to propose a different explanation for God's existence (supposing we've already accepted that part) you would then have to explain why speech hasn't created an AI that acts like God, or else explain what happened to it.

[The Lodger]

I still like the word "fungelicalism". Are individual adherents called "fungi" or are they just treated that way?

[The Old Maid]

Um, do you think you've given us an argument? One that requires refutation?

Heh. Not in the sense you mean; that's not where I was going with it. Rather, there's a difference between prayer and Gimme; there's a difference between God being true to His promises and (as earlier posters phrased it in earlier weeks) a genie capable of being maneuvered into a corner by humans saying certain binding words. It's a theme of L.B. interpretation, and an occasional "power of words" side expedition is part of a larger collection of serious questions and concerns the novels advance and represent.

[Lucia]

Better a dirty pol than a vending machine.

[McJulie]

I have noticed the whole "once you have faith, you're OK, even if you never lift a finger to DO anything" deal in other hardcore Fundamentalist stuff---Jack Chick's comics are full of that sort of thing.

Yet, if they really believed this, why would they spend so much energy trying to get people to vote for Republicans?

[jon]

I thought the best part was where Rayford THREW AWAY THE REMOTE CONTROL of the television. Is that a statement of ultimate faith? What courage! What determination! Talk about burning your bridges for Jesus.

My favorite response to the question, "Are you saved?" is "Yes." My response to the next question,"When were you saved?" is "When I said, "YES"". It expresses that there is some relationship between faith and life and that they are ongoing.

I also like the response that I was saved 2000 years ago. The bigger question is, "When did you become aware that you were saved?"

Jon

[John H.]

That's not simply Arminian, or even Pelagian -- it's spellcasting.

God is my Dungeon Master.

[Brian]

Those words by Anne Lemont really would make a good scene in a romantic comedy.... Hmmm.....

[eyelessgame]

Since you've been gone for over a week, it seems a good time to repeat, though many have said it before me, that this ex-christian really, really enjoys your work. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a little vicarious schadenfreude in seeing the idiot-faux-christians get beat up as badly as you do to them, but more seriously -- and more maturely (is that a word? My son used the term 'grown-uppy' a while back, perhaps that's better) -- you are a touchstone for reminding me that those L&J creationist-literalist faux-Christians really aren't the real deal, and that the Christians in my own life are made of better stuff.

[KCinDC]

it's easy to envision telling someone you love them in your head, but much harder when you're facing the reality of actually DOING it.

Edward, I don't understand how you can see this as parallel to the case of prayer. Are you positing a God who can hear your words wherever you are but has no way of knowing your unspoken thoughts, even when you're consciously directing them to God?

[Davis X. Machina]

And I, too, marveled at the theology that suggests that all one needs to do is say one prayer and they are "saved."

It's more economical that way.

To save money a lot of HMO's are doing the same thing to psychiatry.

[Darryl Pearce]

Dare I say it? This is better Bible study than I ever got at Sunday school.

This wondering, wandering, pondering pilgrim appreciates your efforts....

[Erick Oppeen]

A lot of this sort of "Christianity" is more sorcery than anything else, or so it seems to me---recite the correct formulae, and You Too Can Be Saved (or call down curses on the Hee-thinn, or what-have-you).

But then, pre-millenial dispensationalism strikes me as the bargain-basement of Protestantism. I wonder if L+J ever heard of the Millerites---they believed that the World Would End on a particular day, and a lot of them gave away their property or sold it for pennies on the dollar, and gathered on hills in white robes. Unfortunately, (for them) the world didn't end---and they had the devil's own time getting their property back, since believing that the World Will End Soon is not considered insanity in-and-of-itself. The Millerites eventually evolved into the Seventh-Day Adventists.

[Sharaloth]

Fundi: Are you saved?
Me: Yes, I am saved.
Fundi: When were you saved?
Me: Ten years ago, among the worst time in my life.
Fundi: Tell me about how you were saved.
Me: I was living a lie, a horrible, tedious lie. It was eating away at my life, my motivation, my spirit. I had no joy in anything, and i found myself doing things only because I was told to do it by others, to 'fit in'. I knew there had to be more to life, something I was missing. Like there was a hole in my heart that nothing seemed to fill. Not the social gatherings, not the seemingly friendly people around me, not all the rhetoric of the soulless society I was living in could give me fulfillment. Then I found him, and I realized what life and joy and beauty really were.
Fundi: You accepted jesus into your heart.
Me: Jesus? Hell no, that christian stuff was the life I had to get away from. God is dead, man. I found Nietzsche.

the conversation deteriorated from there.

[chris Borthwick]

Don't mock Rayford for 'taking action' by saving his soul; that's all that's open to him. The thing about prophecy is that it's going to happen, and there's nothing you can do about it; which does make it hard to maintain dramatic tension through twelve books. Later, for example [spoiler] Rayford overhears Carpathia planning to nuke some American city, while he's on a plane Ray's piloting, a united 933 situation, except that the 933 people crashed the plane while Ray (why doesn't anybody ever call him Ray?)decides that as the nuking is obviously doomed to happen by the prophecies (the will of god?) there's no point in trying to stop it.
What was that joke about the pope greeting the return of christ? "Look busy! Look busy!" The heroes of LB are basically filling in time on a hamster wheel till the big day.
Even Rayford saving his own soul, given the tight bounds of the LB statistics ('one third will die', etc) would probably mean that someone else will in consequence not be saved; the total number of the saved is fixed.

[tinheart]

One of those fundawacko types I am always referring to said in a blog comment that having accepted Christ he could sit on his sofa watching TV for the rest of his days and still go to heaven. It still blows me away that anyone really believes that.

People have believed it for centuries. It's a heresy called Antinominanism.
More details can be found here:

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/heresy/antinomianism/

Not saying this 'cause I'm a fundie. Rather, saying it because you can learn a lot about a religion by its heresies.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

Growing up with the "Sinner's Prayer" presented as the end-all, be-all of Christian faith and action - well, that and ultimately getting others to sincerely say it I think was the main thing that drove me away from my Southern Baptist roots. I was born in 1980, right as the fundies were taking over the SBC. I have a dear, devout but open-minded aunt who stays on, but she grew up seeing a different side and isn't going to be driven away from her beloved local church by the jerks who have taken over the convention.

I, on the other hand, have known nothing other than an increasingly fundamentalist body that keeps violating what my aunt considers to be some very important Baptist principles: the local church is the only governing body and no one is to be compelled to swear allegiance to some artificial creed. Worst of all, it's as if the leadership and much of the membership of the SBC has forgotten why we used to champion the separation of church and state - we used to be at the other end of the big stick.

"I was saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved" - who said something like that?

[cjmr]

"I was saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved" - who said something like that?

Whoever they were, they were probably Catholic. It's Catholic theology. Here's a link to a site that uses that sentiment not as a quote, but as an explanation. (Scroll down to the bottom of the page.)

[Scott]

You'll find that government and religion will change, war and inflation will erupt, there will be widespread death and destruction, martyrdom of saints, and even a devastating earthquake. Be prepared.
...
God wants to forgive you your sins and assure you of heaven. Listen to Ezekiel 33:11: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."

Daddy only beats us because he loves us; the beatings are our fault - we made him do it. If we acknowledge that 'Daddy' is just an abusive drunk, we'd have to actually do something, like leave. If leaving means eternal hellfire, then denial is our only option. I wonder how abusive evilvangelical households are. Maybe I should read more Dobson and find out..... :-)

[aunursa]

Ray (why doesn't anybody ever call him Ray?)decides that as the nuking is obviously doomed to happen by the prophecies (the will of god?) there's no point in trying to stop it.

Perhaps my memory is faulty: I seem to remember that Rayford decides that he CAN'T kill Carpathia because it isn't time yet. It would ruin the prophecy.

And the city was San Francisco ... d'ya think L&J enjoyed describing (I mean, for what passes for a description of) a nuclear attack on that city?!?

[patter]

filled with this newfound resolution to take decisive action, Rayford resumes watching the television screen

Classic! It's Home Shopping Network for the unconverted: "But wait! There's more! If you act RIGHT NOW, we'll send you not one but two Miracle Spot Remover kits ASOLUTELY FREE!!"

[cjmr's husband]

That should be "Miracle Stain on Your Soul Remover".
Absolutely free, just say the magic words!

[PK]

An (admittedly loose) analogy regarding verbal vs. nonverbal prayer:

How would a bride respond if the groom just stood there silently when asked if he wanted to take her as his wife because 'she already knows how he feels'?

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. (Luke 6:45)

But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (Romans 10:8-10)

[Ben Allen]

How would a bride respond if the groom just stood there silently when asked if he wanted to take her as his wife because 'she already knows how he feels'?

Depends on whether or not he's got supernatural mindreading powers.

[Ben Allen]

Pardon, she.

[cjmr]

That is a really loose analogy!

The main difference between silence at a wedding and silent prayer is one of requirement. The wedding ceremony requires a communication of active verbal consent by both parties for the marriage to be valid. (Although active non-verbal consent is acceptable when one of the parties in the marriage is physically unable to speak.) Staying silent "because the bride knows how I feel" is not an option, because the active verbal consent is not for the benefit of the bride, it is for the benefit of the presider and witnesses, who do not necessarily know how the groom feels.

Private prayer, on the other hand, has only two participants--the petitioner and God. The petitioner certainly knows what he or she means. God is presumed also to know what the petitioner means (that whole omniscience thing). Verbal speech is unnecessary and optional. Silent, contemplative prayer has been taught as tradition for centuries, often as a complement to verbal prayer.

In the case of the "sinners prayer" (which as a Catholic I find theologically questionable), I think the reason for saying it out loud is to give it the same kind of 'communication of active verbal consent' that is found in the wedding ceremony. If everything we read silently counted as a prayer, then there'd be an awful lot of strange prayers involving things like Cascade dishwasher detergent, Kellogg's Pop Tarts, and Diet Coke with Splenda (just to name a few things that I can read silently from my seat).