L.B.: The sticking-place

Left Behind, pp. 343-344

We're back at the Pan-Con Club at JFK. If this were a TV show, movie or play I'd admire the economy and resourcefulness the authors demonstrate here in reusing this set so many times. In a supposedly globe-trotting novel, though, this repetition seems less like efficient set design and more like a failure of imagination.

Thrillers like this are supposed to take the reader to exotic locations around the world, to present travel as adventure. Left Behind is more like business travel -- an endless parade of interchangeable airplanes, airport lounges and hotels that all blur together so you can hardly tell what city you're in or whether it even matters if you could.

Rayford Steele is beating himself up for not yet having convinced Chloe and Hattie to convert to whatever it is he now believes. His fretting here is a classic example of evangelical anxiety, the crippling dread that one is personally responsible for condemning others to eternal torment. Much of Rayford's self-flagellation here is familiar to anyone who has witnessed -- or felt -- that particular variety of guilt.

He felt like a wimp. ... What was the matter with him? Nothing was as it was before or would ever be again. If Bruce Barnes was right, the disappearance of God's people was only the beginning of the most cataclysmic period in the history of the world. And here I am, Rayford thought, worried about offending people. I'm liable to "not offend" my own daughter right into hell.

This bit about "offensiveness" is boilerplate from many an evangelical sermon -- the kind of sermon that exhorts others to proselytize without itself being a message of evangelism. Like most such sermons, Rayford's mini-lecture here -- intended for the reader as much as for himself -- functions like a pep-rally. It's intended to foster bravado, an exhortation to "screw your courage to the sticking-place."

These pep-rally sermons pretend that any hesitation to proselytize -- in the precise way, and with the precise message, that they prescribe -- is a matter of cowardice and fearfulness. Specifically, they pretend that this hesitation must be the product of a fear of mockery and ridicule, of being called foolish.

But to the extent that fear plays a role at all in this hesitation, that's not what their listeners are really afraid of. They're not afraid of being called foolish, they are afraid that this accusation might be right. They're not afraid that someone will say to them, "That's nonsense. You don't really believe that, do you?" They're afraid that it really is nonsense, and that maybe they don't really believe it after all.

No such sermon is complete without the obligatory recitation of St. Paul's charge to "be not ashamed of the gospel of Christ." Yet the "gospel" these sermons advocate spreading has little to do with anything Paul would have recognized as "the gospel of Christ." That, I think, is the real cause of the reluctance most hearers have to proselytize in the way these pep-rally sermons advocate. Just look at the so-called gospel that Rayford is trying to persuade himself to preach. It portrays God as an arbitrary and pettily vindictive djinn constrained to do his bidding by the recitation of magic words. His reluctance to spread this "gospel" is not a matter of cowardice, but of conscience. He's not embarrassed at the prospect of seeming "offensive" or "politically incorrect" (the preferred self-congratulatory term for the enthusiastically offensive) -- he's legitimately embarrassed.

Rayford also felt bad about his approach to Hattie. He had dealt with his own wrong in having pursued her, and he regretted having led her on. ...

Rayford thinks he has "dealt with" his mistreatment of Hattie because he has asked God to forgive him for it. Yet he hasn't apologized to Hattie or asked for her forgiveness, nor does he seem to see any need to do so. This appears, at first glance, to be an example of an exclusively vertical faith lacking any horizontal aspect -- meaning a faith that is concerned only with one's relationship to God and not with one's relationship to other people (as if such a thing were possible). But really his faith has little to do with God either, except insofar as God serves as a means to his ends. His wrongs are "his own wrongs." It's all about him.

This is reflected, too, in the thrill he gets from the idea that he is living in "the most cataclysmic period in the history of the world." That thrill -- which plays a big role in the allure of premillennial dispensationalist apocalypticism -- comes from the idea that this makes him special, that it makes his life more meaningful than it might otherwise seem. Rayford's language echoes other expressions of this desperate quest for vicarious meaning that comes from living in "interesting times." That attitude only makes sense from an extremely self-centered perspective: Sure, the apocalypse means widespread suffering and death, but it makes my life more significant, so on balance that's a plus.

Rayford muses a bit more about this cataclysmically important new age:

Whoever came forward with proclamations of peace and unity had to be suspect. There would be no peace. There would be no unity. This was the beginning of the end, and all would be chaos from now on.

The chaos would make peacemakers and smooth talkers only more attractive. And to people who didn't want to admit that God had been behind the disappearances, any other explanation would salve their consciences.

That's a stark and succinct statement of two of the authors' core beliefs:

1. "Peace and unity [have] to be suspect." Anyone not advocating chaos is not to be trusted.

2. The truth of their particular beliefs about God can either be "admitted" or actively denied. Anyone who claims to believe anything else is deliberately embracing what they know to be nonsense as a way of hiding from the irrefutable truth.

The authors' also suggest here that periods of chaos "make peacemakers more attractive." Rather than chaos and insecurity opening the door to strongman demagogues offering security in exchange for unlimited power, LaHaye and Jenkins think insecurity makes people more susceptible to the appeal of complete and unilateral disarmament.

In any case, Rayford is determined to play his new and cataclysmically important role in this new and cataclysmically important era:

There was no more time for polite conversation, for gentle persuasion. Rayford had to direct people to the Bible, to the prophetic portions. He felt so limited in his understanding. He had always been an erudite reader, but this stuff from Revelation and Daniel and Ezekiel was new and strange to him. Frighteningly, it made sense. He had begun taking Irene's Bible with him everywhere he went, reading it whenever possible. While the first officer read magazines during his downtime, Rayford would pull out the Bible.

"What in the world?" he was asked more than once.

OK, no. That didn't happen. Definitely not "more than once," and probably not even once. First off, we've seen what Rayford does with his "downtime" at home: he watches TV and he talks on the phone. He read the Bible on the night he was converted, but since then it's been all CNN and Nightline. Second, Rayford has had only three flights since his conversion. He flew to Atlanta and back with his daughter along, spending all of his downtime with her. And Chloe again has accompanied him on this, his third trip, during which he has again spent every moment outside of the cockpit talking with her. I suppose that he may have had a few moments between taking off from O'Hare and landing at JFK during which he might have opened his Bible, but at that point the first officer would have been flying the plane himself, and so he probably wouldn't have had the chance to glance over to Rayford and implausibly ask, "Whatcha readin'? Looks like the prophetic portions of the Bible. ..."

My guess is that his first officer simply overheard some of Rayford's wincingly awkward conversations with Chloe -- conversations in which he has explored every detail of his long, kinkily sexless flirtation with Hattie. Suddenly realizing how repressed Steele really is, and how messed up he's got to be to be talking about that stuff with his own daughter, his co-pilot involuntarily gasped, "What in the world?" Hearing this, Rayford assumed it had to be an expression of awed admiration for his courageous witness on behalf of the Gospel of the Apocalypse.

Overall, though, Rayford is disappointed by the contrast between the boldness with which he opened his Bible that one time on the plane and his reluctance to be as boldly "offensive" closer to home:

"What in the world?" he was asked more than once.

Unashamed, he said he was finding answers and direction he had never seen before. But with his own daughter and his friend? He had been too polite.

So wait ... Hattie is his "friend" now? I'm not sure which is creepier: that he would refer to her by that term, or that he really believes that he has ever been "too polite" when it came to Hattie.

Comments

[Andy]

Where is everybody? I'm number 1?

LB Friday is here again!

[Gilmore]

The truth of their particular beliefs about God can either be "admitted" or actively denied. Anyone who claims to believe anything else is deliberately embracing what they know to be nonsense as a way of hiding from the irrefutable truth.

Back when I was a fundie, this was a shared assumption among everyone I knew -- 'unbelievers' really _knew_ in their hearts the truth of Christ, they just chose to deny it so they could continue living in sin. The idea that someone might actually believe the whole thing was a load of crap was simply never discussed.

You can see why that belief would help shore up one's own certainty, but it is a definite handicap to evangelism.

[Jon]

Anyone who claims to believe anything else is deliberately embracing what they know to be nonsense as a way of hiding from the irrefutable truth.

This is similar to the notions put forth in Chick Tracts that suggest that any religion other than his brand of fudamentalism is, by default, Satanic. It's not "of God" therefore it's of the Devil.
Why are false dichotomies so vital to fundamentalist belief? I suppose it must make it easier to believe that you're absolutely right if the only possible alternative is to be absolutely wrong.
Oh, and hooray! Left Behind Friday!
(I was really jonesing for it today.)

[sievetronix]

Seriously, If I woke up one day and the book of revelations made perfect sense to me, I would be frightened too.

[mmack]

That attitude only makes sense from an extremely self-centered perspective: Sure, the apocalypse means widespread suffering and death, but it makes my life more significant, so on balance that's a plus.

Shorter version: "I'm saved, sucks to be you"

"Peace and unity [have] to be suspect." Anyone not advocating chaos is not to be trusted.

Explains GWB and the 30% ers. But I wonder if Timmy and Jerry read a statement from this gentleman:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God"

And just to help Timmy and Jerry, that's in Matthew 5:3-10. I know it's not as cool as Revelations and the Mark of the Beast, but it is pretty relevant. Then again, it doesn't start with "Thou Shalt Not . . . " so I guess a RTC could ignore it.

And as for proselytizing, that same fellow, in the same Book of Matthew, Chapter 10, had some pretty good advice:

"13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."

Of course, that was the wimpy, liberal Jesus and not the "Kick Ass and Take Names" Rambo-Jesus, so I suppose that doesn't apply either.

[Spalanzani]

“He had always been an erudite reader, but this stuff from Revelation and Daniel and Ezekiel was new and strange to him.”

I’m pretty sure you can’t be anything close to an erudite reader without becoming very familiar with the contents of the Bible, even if you never read the Bible itself. It’s simply referenced way too often by, well, everyone. In the same way, it’s nigh unto impossible to read Stephen Jay Gould’s collected essays without learning every damn line from The Mikado .

[Spalanzani]

sievetronix: "Seriously, If I woke up one day and the book of revelations made perfect sense to me, I would be frightened too."

On a similar note, from Cat and Girl:

Cat: "I’ve never understood Zippy the Pinhead"

Girl: "Understanding Zippy the Pinhead is the first sign of adult onset schizophrenia."

[mmack]

We're back at the Pan-Con Club at JFK

Damnit Fred, now EVERY time I read that I think of your line about the Kit Kat Klub in an earlier post.

"Willkommen, bienvenue, welcome!"

Of course, it could be worse

"Conversions make the world go around, the world go around, the world go around . . ."

[hapax]

Y'know, I had a friend once give me a button that said "I am eruditer than you."

I can't imagine anyone using that word of himself without being intentionally ironic. Except, I guess, Ray O'Steele. He'd probably describe himself as "rugged", too.

[Kevin]

"The truth of their particular beliefs about God can either be "admitted" or actively denied. Anyone who claims to believe anything else is deliberately embracing what they know to be nonsense as a way of hiding from the irrefutable truth."\

This is the most frustrating aspect of dealing with fundamentalist relatives/friends. They seem to think that either I don't think about these matters or that I know I am wrong and simply choose to ignore that information because I don't want to "face up" to the implications of the person in question being correct. They few times I have gone at over this issue, the people in questioned seemed to literally be incapable of understanding that I thought the religion they preached had nothing to do with Christianity as I understood it and their pronouncements on what God wants made me question whether they had even read their Bible. The kept coming back to phrases like "you know thats not true" and "you know the Bible really says ..", as if it was literally inconceivable that anyone could believe in any form of religion other than their own. It was very odd and disconcerting. How do you ague with someone who doesn't admit the possibility of good faith contradiction?

[aunursa]

The truth of their particular beliefs about God can either be "admitted" or actively denied. Anyone who claims to believe anything else is deliberately embracing what they know to be nonsense as a way of hiding from the irrefutable truth.

I've heard that a number of times when arguing with Evangelicals. "Deep down you know that Jesus is the Messiah." I have found only one effective response.

[aunursa]

I suppose that he may have had a few moments between taking off from O'Hare and landing at JFK during which he might have opened his Bible, but at that point the first officer would have been flying the plane himself, and so he probably wouldn't have had the chance to glance over to Rayford and implausibly ask, "Whatcha readin'?

In the sequel Tribulation Force Rayford gets in trouble for proselytizing to another first officer.

[Elmo]

Ranking in importance, does "the most cataclysmic period in the history of the world" go above or below "The most critical time in the history of the world."?

[Keith]

Back when I was a fundie, this was a shared assumption among everyone I knew -- 'unbelievers' really _knew_ in their hearts the truth of Christ, they just chose to deny it so they could continue living in sin. The idea that someone might actually believe the whole thing was a load of crap was simply never discussed.

You can see why that belief would help shore up one's own certainty, but it is a definite handicap to evangelism.

Not just evangelism but interacting with people in a way that is genuine and human. That's what creeps us nonbelievers out when we're approached by proselytizers. Rarely is it done out of genuine human interest but with this weird apprehension, like they are on a scavenger hunt and have to collect a token from someone in a crowd but they don't know who has it. They sheepishly approach whomever will look them in the eye and ask them the secret cryptic question, always a little embarrassed that they might have to explain themselves. It's easier to just assume everyone already knows the right answer and they're just playing a game. If someone says, "Yes, I've heard of Jesus, thanks," they go on to the next person. If they say, "no thanks, not interested" then they win the token and move on to level 2 where they try to save a soul.

The problem is, nonbelievers refuse to play by the rules and answer with the appropriate response form either column A or column B. Suddenly confronted with someone not playing by the rules can be scary. So best just pretend everyone is par tof the scavenger hunt.

[rampancy]

"This appears, at first glance, to be an example of an exclusively vertical faith lacking any horizontal aspect -- meaning a faith that is concerned only with one's relationship to God and not with one's relationship to other people (as if such a thing were possible)."

Thank you so much for nailing this.

This all brought me back to an article I got off of Digg this morning:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1004/p13s02-lire.html

"For Mr. Weinstein – a former Air Force judge advocate and assistant counsel in the Reagan White House – more is involved than isolated cases of discrimination. He charges that several incidents in recent years – and more than 5,000 complaints his group has received from active-duty and retired military personnel – point to a growing willingness inside the military to support a particular brand of Christianity and to permit improper evangelizing in the ranks. More than 95 percent of those complaints come from other Christians, he says."

Hmph. "Oppression of Christians", indeed.

[Geds]

So, uh, aunursa, what's your single response?

"'politically incorrect' (the preferred self-congratulatory term for the enthusiastically offensive)"

I have been trying for years to say something this elegant about the phrase 'politically incorrect'. Can I steal this?

[Vermic]

We're back at the Pan-Con Club at JFK.

At this point, it's as if they're daring us to be entertained.

[Keith]

At this point, it's as if they're daring us to be entertained.

Seriously. It's like the Vacation movies all strung together but with twice the tedium and none of the humor. Though, Buck, as played by Chevey Chase, would probably make it at least kind of interesting.

[lou]

Thrillers like this are supposed to take the reader to exotic locations around the world, to present travel as adventure. Left Behind is more like business travel -- an endless parade of interchangeable airplanes, airport lounges and hotels that all blur together so you can hardly tell what city you're in or whether it even matters if you could.

I rather wonder if this also ties into a certain belief system.

For instance, my brother served on a missionary boat that went around the world providing medical services and also "preaching the gospel." He went to the Black Sea, Sweden and various parts of Africa. You would think his stories would be rich and exciting and his photos a wonder. You would be wrong. They were chiefly inside buildings, basically of groups worshipping in the most dry and sterile manner. In fact the photos could have been taken at Westboro Baptist Church, USA. The most interesting pictures were in Sweden with a girl he had a crush on (pics of her on a tire swing, laughing on the edge a gorgeous fjord).

Everyone else's comments on the "winning souls" is so spot on. I also grew up in a fundie household. I know that was the one thing I totally hated the most. I was embarrassed and felt guilty and ashamed that I was embarrassed. IIRC our youth group even had a contest on how many souls could be brought to Christ (or at least how many people we could drag to church).

[Rob Smith]

"In the sequel Tribulation Force Rayford gets in trouble for proselytizing to another first officer."

I get it... this is all foreshadowing. See they are good writer after all! lol

[carovee]

Keith, your description reminds me of a scene at the end of Jesus Camp. One of the girls featured walks up to a group of men taking a break (or something) and asks if they are saved. Or maybe she asks if they are going to Heaven. At any rate she's flabbergasted when they indicate that yes, they are. I think she finally concludes that some other evangelical must have gotten to them before her. Poor kid.

[Jesurgislac]

Geds: So, uh, aunursa, what's your single response?

"Torture will continue until morale improves."

Hapax: Y'know, I had a friend once give me a button that said "I am eruditer than you."

*hearts*

I can't imagine anyone using that word of himself without being intentionally ironic. Except, I guess, Ray O'Steele. He'd probably describe himself as "rugged", too.

Oh, he so would. I'm startled he doesn't use it of himself here: I'd have thought he would need to use "rugged" to shield himself from the side-effects of labelling yourself "erudite".

Anyway, no one who read the gospels for the first time ever with the kind of non-reaction Rayford Steele has could possibly be described as "erudite" in European/American literature.

I mean, think ahout it - it would be like reading Hamlet for the first time, suddenly realising where all those references to it were sourced, getting the context to the familiar quotes for the very first time - only more so, because as Spalanzani notes, the gospels are way more widely referenced and quoted than Hamlet. An erudite reader in "English literature" - however defined - would find reading the gospels for the first time thrilling - would keep wanting to leap up to reference this and that. An erudite reader would be found the next morning squinting over a pile of texts, saying to his daughter in a bemused kind of way "You know, I never actually thought about what Melville meant when he had Billy Budd say that - look, Chloe, here and here - "

"My God, Daddy, you know you're flying to Chicago today?"

"Oh, never mind that, Chloe, I'll call in sick. Look at this! Why didn't I read this before?"

"Because Mom kept telling you to, so you wouldn't," Chloe retorted, surprised by her own daring - shocked when her father's face crumbled into tears.

.....

That would be Rayford Steele, first reading the gospels, if he'd been an erudite reader pre-conversion. Not the man who just switches the light off and goes to sleep.

[Nope]

Keith: Though, Buck, as played by Chevey Chase, would probably make it at least kind of interesting.

I vote for an all-80's-SNL cast, plus Leslie Nielsen as Nicolae.

[MikeJ]

I vote for an all-80's-SNL cast, plus Leslie Nielsen as Nicolae.

Great. Now I'll hear the theme to Police Squad every time he's mentioned. Does that make me erudite? Or prove that I know a hawk from a handsaw?

[Robb]

mmack -
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God"

- your version says that? Must be a heretical translation. Mine says: "Blessed are those that kick-ass in the name of Freedom, Justice, & Democracy. They'll rule!" I'm pretty sure G Dub's says the same thing. . .

RE: Fundie evangelism pressure
I'm so glad that I went to a Bible college that was getting over it's paralyzing commitment to these ideas. I'm very familiar with all this, as well as the residual guilt about it, but I recognize now how shallow & misguided it all is. Now, I'm only committed to being honest about my faith, rather than being militant about "sharing" it.

[Robb]

I vote for an all-80's-SNL cast, plus Leslie Nielsen as Nicolae.

Hmm. . . that gives me a great idea: half assed vignette re-enactments on Youtube! The best can be posted to Right Behind. That could be quite cool.

[Keith]

I vote for an all-80's-SNL cast, plus Leslie Nielsen as Nicolae.

Julia Sweeny as Chloe and Dana Carvey, in drag, as Hattie. But instead of Leslie Nielsen as Nicky Mountaintop, it should be Andy Kaufman. And Steve Martin as our intrepid reporter.

Left Behind as a slapstick, SNL movie... that would be awesome!

[MikhailBorg]

Julia Sweeny as Chloe

With her status as a "Richard Dawkins Award" winner, I can't decide whether she'd be eager to play the role or nauseated.

[ako]

But instead of Leslie Nielsen as Nicky Mountaintop, it should be Andy Kaufman.

He could actually make listing all the countries in the world in alphabetical order really interesting. And sort of impressive. Not something that would get the entire UN clapping and cheering if they were expecting a serious speech, but interesting and impressive.

[Spalanzani]

After thinking about this a bit more, I realized there's another way Rayford's unfamiliarity with the Bible doesn't make sense: even putting aside how ubiquitous the Bible is in Western literature, how the heck did Rayford manage to be married to a "prophesy"-obsessed nutjob for years without becoming at least passingly familiar with the Bible, especially Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation? Did he just ignore everything she ever said to him? Knowing Rayford, that would actually be fairly plausible, except that the first chapter describes him as instantly recognizing the Rapture as soon as it happens, so he had to have remembered some things.

Argghh! This book is like a giant onion made of crap. Just when you think that you've gotten to the center of it all, there's always another layer of steaming produce waiting for you.

[Vermic]

Back when I was a fundie, this was a shared assumption among everyone I knew -- 'unbelievers' really _knew_ in their hearts the truth of Christ, they just chose to deny it so they could continue living in sin.

I've seen this position taken as well (having been on the receiving end, as an atheist). They cite a Biblical quote that "the name of God is written in the hearts of all men" or something (I don't remember the exact wording). From which the conclusion is derived that EVERYONE is a believer by default, so the world is divided into two groups: true believers and deliberate deniers. The obvious corollary here is that if you don't believe, it's YOUR FAULT! and you therefore deserve whatever punishment God chooses to dish out. You see this viewpoint throughout all of the Jack Chick output.

The idea that somebody might simply not agree with their version of Christianity, or believe otherwise, or simply not care very much, is unimaginable to some people. They believe that atheists such as myself are unceasingly spending enormous mental effort to keep ourselves in denial about the truth of Christ which we KNOW deep down, but refuse to acknowledge. They think atheists go through life like the protagonist in "The Tell-Tale Heart", ready to crack any minute.

[Tonio]

The evangelical anxiety embodied in Rayford is simply another manifestation of self-centeredness. Behind "the crippling dread that one is personally responsible for condemning others to eternal torment" is the delusion that one can control the universe. While fear may play a role in the hesitation that Rayford feels, I suggest it also plays a role in the evangelical zeal, which may be an unconscious attempt to smother the doubts.

[Dene]

Back when I was a fundie, this was a shared assumption among everyone I knew -- 'unbelievers' really _knew_ in their hearts the truth of Christ, they just chose to deny it so they could continue living in sin. The idea that someone might actually believe the whole thing was a load of crap was simply never discussed.

Nor can they explain why anyone would intentionally deny information that will send them to eternal hell. Sleeping in on Sundays, doing whatever horrible things they assume all the non-believers do all the time because they're not Christian is supposedly so important to me than keeping myself from being tortured for all eternity. Do they really think non-believers lives are so much fun they're worth that? This isn't just wanting to have pre-marital sex without religious guilt, it's actively trying to get into hell.

Re: Rayford the erudite, what is the author's idea of a well-read person? I mean, presumably they're using that as short hand for an intellectual, right? The kind of person who went to some elite college? He keeps making references to himself this way, although he never seems to reference anything he's learned or read anywhere before the story. (Nor did he seem to have any philosophy or thoughts that he's now rejected.) Are they just denying that so much of Wester Literature and Art is Biblically based, or do they not know what that kind of person will have studied so it's like imagining 13 miles between Penn Station and mid-town in NYC?

[mmack]

- your version says that? Must be a heretical translation. Mine says: "Blessed are those that kick-ass in the name of Freedom, Justice, & Democracy. They'll rule!"

Stupid liberal Good News Bible! The only good part of my version is where it says "had intercourse" instead of "laid down with".

[patter]

I vote for Mike Myers as all the characters

[Quin]

He had begun taking Irene's Bible with him everywhere he went, reading it whenever possible. While the first officer read magazines during his downtime, Rayford would pull out the Bible.

If I remember the second book (or what little I read of it) right, Rayford's downtime is primarily when the co-pilot is piloting. Does anyone here know enough about commercial piloting to know if pilots are allowed to do that, or if they should be paying attention to what their co-pilot's doing so no one dies in a horrific accident?

...Which has already happened in Left Behind. If I were a pilot and didn't know I was in a PMD novel and therefore stuck on Earth because I didn't say the super sekrit magical words (tm) in time, I'd be keeping one eye on my co-pilot in case there was another round of mystery disappearances.

[Salamanda]

mmack: But I wonder if Timmy and Jerry read a statement from this gentleman:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God"

Yeah, funny that.

I might be muddling this up, but I think this is how I've heard it sort of tap-danced around. Jesus didn't come to bring peace between people ( the peace that the world gives) but rather peace between man and God (read: conversion). In fact, Jesus came to bring division between people, not peace. So that would make proselytizers the blessed, legitimate peacemakers. Political peacemakers? EEEEEVIL....

Spiritual matters vs. worldly matters, I suppose.

lou: I was embarrassed and felt guilty and ashamed that I was embarrassed.

Heard THAT! And God forbid you be an introvert. All that would earn you were those pep talks about "stepping outside your comfort zone". Joy. Feeding people isn't enough by itself! Without that "word from our sponsor", how do these people know they're not being fed by a Buddhist? XD

The few times I did go up to people and try to talk with them, I'd usually end up listening and asking THEM questions. I always found it much more satisfying---and still do, really---but at the time it felt like a guilty pleasure, like I was shirking my duty.

[mmack]

I second Mike Meyers, especially if he plays Nicolae like Dr. Evil:

"You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have prophets with frickin' flames comin' out of their mouths! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?"

[Spalanzani]

Arrgggghhhhhhhhhh!!! And now that I think even more, I remember that earlier in the book Rayford was described as being a fairly prominent member of the spiritually-dead church he and Irene had attended before Irene switched to New Hope. How could he have attended church, any church, often enough to be seen as a pillar of the church community and still have the contents of the Bible seem “new and strange to him”? I mean, I know there’s a lot of obscure stuff in the Bible, but it’s not like he’s going through Obadiah. This is Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation we’re talking about. Everyone has at least a passing familiarity with some part of those books, even if they’re the kind of person who goes around punching random Christians in the face. So how could a supposedly well-read man who attended church regularly and was married to an extremely devout woman who had no reservations about sharing her faith find these books to be strange and new?!

…Uggghhhhh…

Obviously, it was a mistake for me to reread the Left Behind archives so fast. Even if it’s second-hand and with Fred’s great commentary, too much Left Behind can be hazardous for one's mental stability.

[Vermic]

@ako: [Andy Kaufman] could actually make listing all the countries in the world in alphabetical order really interesting. And sort of impressive.

How about Tom Lehrer? He sang all the chemical elements and made it funny; I'm sure he could do justice to the UN member nations. Tom Lehrer for Antichrist!

[Salamanda]

But instead of Leslie Nielsen as Nicky Mountaintop, it should be Andy Kaufman.

"HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAYYYYYYYYY!"

Can we get Dan Ackroyd as Rayford? He'd be perfect:

"Hattie, you ignorant slut."

[Jon]

Keith, your description reminds me of a scene at the end of Jesus Camp.

That's what came to mind for me as well. Such an odd scene, watching her build up her courage and then totally dissmeble when confronted with an unexpected response. It doesn't bode well for her future social interactions with non-evangelicals.

They think atheists go through life like the protagonist in "The Tell-Tale Heart", ready to crack any minute.

"Missionaries!" I shrieked, "proselytize no more! I admit the belief! -- tear up my ACLU card! -- here, here! -- it is the beating of your hideous God!"

[hapax]

sorry, that was me at 4:35 (Actually, that was Poe, as defaced by me)

[Robb]

Can we get Dan Ackroyd as Rayford? He'd be perfect:

"Hattie, you ignorant slut."

Ha! That would be wonderful - I can imagine a great scene of him rationalizing to himself that because he never had intercourse with Hattie, it was totally pure.

[Ken]

What Slack calls "Evangelical Anxiety", Internet Monk calls "Wretched Urgency" in this essay. Having experienced it myself, I can attest that these In-Your-Face Christian Witnesses are literally DRIVEN. They have been taught that if you don't Get Everybody You Meet SAVED, "God Will Hold You Accountable" if any of them are ever lost (i.e. If you don't witness -- HARD -- to them and they end up in Hell, God Will Punish You Along With Them). This leads to some really insane levels of pressure and equally insane desperation tactics to WITNESS! to anybody and everybody you come across; if you don't, God Will Punish You.

Darbyism/PMD/Rapture Fever adds to the pressure. When the World WILL (not can) End Tomorrow At The Latest, you literally have only one shot to Get Them Saved while you can (before you find out if you're also Left Behind). The combined pressure and desperation to Prosletyze By Any Means is incredible, and literally Hellish; if I hadn't discovered D&D, it probably would have either killed me or burned me out in a "Take Your God and Shove It!" reaction.

Thrillers like this are supposed to take the reader to exotic locations around the world, to present travel as adventure. Left Behind is more like business travel -- an endless parade of interchangeable airplanes, airport lounges and hotels that all blur together so you can hardly tell what city you're in or whether it even matters if you could. -- Slacktivist

In between the endless parade of idiot/phone conversations.

It's just bad writing, specifically Failure of Imagination. Which it has been pointed out that LBs authors suffer from.

Or Laziness.

[sievetronix]

RE: Spalanzani
That was the old Rayford Steele, the one who went dead eyed through his church, just going through the motions. Sure he became a prominent member of his church but the bible wasn't speaking to him.

But now this is the new Rayford Steele, Revelations is making complee sense to him and the Bible is speaking to him.

And that is a good thing considering what the neighbors dog is telling him to do.

[Ken]

This book is like a giant onion made of crap. Just when you think that you've gotten to the center of it all, there's always another layer of steaming produce waiting for you. -- Spalanzani

Don't forget "DRENCHED IN BUTTER!"

Re: "the name of God is written in the hearts of all men," I strongly recommend to everyone here a book called "Knowledge of Angels" by Jill Patton Walsh. It's set in a sort of fictional Spain at the time of the Inquisition. A sailor washes up who has the sort of beliefs that are very common in our time, atheist and progressive.

He claims he's never heard of this Jesus fellow, and nobody can decide whether that makes him a heretic or not. If knowledge of God is innate, then he's rejected it even though he's never been preached at. But if it's not, then it's not his fault he's a heathen, and they can't burn him.

At the same time a feral child is discovered, so they decide to try an experiment -- teach her to talk and ask her if she knows about God. The atheist sailor's life depends on the result.

The best part of the book is the very likable characters, including the sailor, the compassionate cardinal in charge of his case, caught up in a system he doesn't like, the philosopher-bishop whose logical, Thomas-Aquinas like faith is deeply shaken by his conversations with the atheist, and the little feral girl.