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

[BC]

I'm thinking because of the short time Rayford has to convert Chloe and Hattie that he has only read the relevant passages in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Book of Revelation - the rest of the Bible is too long and too darned difficult, because he's reading it in Elizabethan English. So, he HAS missed that part of "Blessed are the peacemaker" since that isn't part of the Rapture tale. So, he's missed the lion's den, the three in the burning furnace, the dry bones, etc.

[Jesurgislac]

Quin: 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?

What I have read about this, says that pilot and co-pilot are needed during take-off, and during landing, and if something goes wrong. On any commercial flight, the auto-pilot is on once the plane reaches the designated flight level, and in fact both pilot and co-pilot could spend the rest of the flight reading.

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: "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 wins the thread!

[Mabus]

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"

Salamanda: 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....

When I was v. small, the first Bible I was ever given had some kind of commentary in front, including a FAQ about spiritual issues, one of which had to do with peace. I'm not sure who wrote it, as it's not attributed--the publishers, I guess. (It so happens that I have another one with the same commentary stuff; the old one is long worn out.) "The biblical idea of peacemaking is not merely to call a truce, but rather to make whole that which had been chaotic, to harmonize discords," to quote a brief section.

Combine that with the general attitude in my area about war and peace, and the kind of news I was hearing about what was going on in the world, and I formed a concept about peacemaking that basically said, "Real peace doesn't come from treaties. Peace only happens when someone powerful steps on the baddies and grinds them screaming into the dust. To get to peace, you have to go through war first. Once the warmongering dictators and the drug lords and the gang leaders are crammed into prison or executed or (when possible) persuaded to switch sides, then peace is the result."

I remember when the first Gulf War was going on, there was a popular t-shirt at school that showed a) a hippie making the peace sign and b) a Peacekeeper missile, captioned, "Which peacekeeper do you want protecting you?" That's what I've thought most of my life about "blessed are the peacemakers". Since W., I'm not so sanguine about it, but I still can't get my mind around pacifism, properly so called.

[Rob]

"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?"

Commercial jetliners are primarily flown by autopilot, and the human pilots spend most of their time playing cards. Australia recently had to pass regulation that pilots crossing the Pacific are not allowed to take naps at the same time. This behavior was apparently pretty common before.

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.

My best response to this question was when some woman on a mission gave me her little spiel about how God was drawing her to me as I was sitting on a bench waiting for a bus in West Hollywood. She asked me if I had ever heard of Jesus and, after a moment of staring at her blankly, I said – man, I was so proud I kept a straight face – "OH! It's actually pronounced hey-zeus. They don't have the 'J' sound." Which, to my utter shock, she completely bought, and began to explain the differences between Jesus the demigod and Jesus my coworker at the deli.

[Jon]

Hapax wins the thread!

I'll second that.

[jackd]

...EVERYONE is a believer by default, so the world is divided into two groups: true believers and deliberate deniers.

Vermic, you omitted one category, the Deceived. These would be the poor fools led astray by evil leaders, played in the Chick tracts by college professors and Catholic priests. In the fundamentalist fantasy of evangelism, exposure to The Truth(tm) immediately moves the Deceived person into one of the two groups you mention.

[Jon]

"Real peace doesn't come from treaties. Peace only happens when someone powerful steps on the baddies and grinds them screaming into the dust. To get to peace, you have to go through war first. Once the warmongering dictators and the drug lords and the gang leaders are crammed into prison or executed or (when possible) persuaded to switch sides, then peace is the result."

That brings to mind the best exchange I ever encountered on King of the Hill:

HANK: How about I buy you an ornament?
COTTON: "Peace?" You would like that, you draft-dodger! Sure you can't find one with a flag-burning on it?
HANK: It's Jesus peace, not hippie peace.

[Salamanda]

Hapax wins the thread!

I'll second that.

Aye.

[ako]

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”?

The authors want to make it All Rayford's fault that he got left behind. However, they also want to convert them. And they have no idea how to convert someone aside from having someone spell out the basic information in the Bible slowly enough that the potential convert gets it.

Hence Rayford's history of church going being coupled with his weird, wide-eyed, "The Bible says stuff about Jesus! And how the world's going to end!" attitude.

This explains the "erudite" problem, as well. It would be fairly easy for a Christian more like Fred to write a character who was somewhat familiar with the Bible, but hadn't fully understood and embraced Christianity. And to have that character have a subsequent conversion. But it runs afoul of the Rules of the Universe according to Lehaye and Jenkins. They can't do "redeemable" and "familiar with, but not believing in the Bible". And, since Rayford doesn't get to be an innocent ignorant, he's trapped in this weird, incoherent world of being a prominent church-goer who reads widely and has his wife haranguing him with prophecies at all times, but completely failed to absorb the information.

[Jesurgislac]

Mabus: I remember when the first Gulf War was going on, there was a popular t-shirt at school that showed a) a hippie making the peace sign and b) a Peacekeeper missile, captioned, "Which peacekeeper do you want protecting you?"

Since a missile can't protect anyone or anything, I assume the right answer was the hippie?

*makes peace sign at Mabus*

[Tonio]

Re: Knowledge of Angels

I have a theory that early humans gave the name "God" to their moral sense/conscience. Over time, the metaphorical meaning became lost.

[Skyknight]

I thought it was "the law of God is written in the hearts of men". In which case, see the Micah 6:8 distillate. If the name...I don't think Paul necessarily meant Jesus, but rather "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh"--"I shall be there, howsoever, I shall be there".

[Vermic]

Rayford's brain is capable of perfectly blocking out any information that doesn't directly concern him. So he may well have listened to Irene yakking about prophecy for years, and retained none of it. He's like that dog in the Far Side strip who hears only "blah blah blah GINGER blah blah GINGER blah" when humans talk to it. Except replace "Ginger" with "Rayford". He's only paying attention to that Bible stuff now because there's something in it for him.

[Lax Tool]

It seems pretty implausible that he'd rise to prominence in any church, even a Unitarian one.

"Do you know where I can get one of those chains with the T on it?"
"It's a cross"
"Across from where?"

[mmack]

A true story about the fundie zeal for saving souls.

My wife and I attended a party back in 2003 that a good friend of mine was hosting. My friend was a "Born Again" Christian that I met in an after work computer course we were both taking through a local college. He attended a well-known "mega-church" in the northwest Chicago suburbs and invited me along to attend services.

He and another friend would have a party every spring at a restaurant or country club and get about 40 - 100 people to attend. This particular party had dinner and dancing (GASP!), so since my wife and I were officially engaged to be married, I brought her along as my date. She knew the host so she understood we would be "breaking bread" with some fundementalists.

The first tipoff things were going to be different that evening was when we sat down to dinner. We were seated with two other ladies in their late 20's - early 30's and a group of three men of about the same age. The men were talking about attending services at Moody Bible Institute and other known fundementalist churches. We began to talk to them and one of them asked my wife and I where we attended church. In all honesty, even though my wife teases me about it to this day, I drew a blank on the name of our church (I wanted to say Our Lady of Peace, but that's where I attended church when I was much younger). My wife replied "St. Thomas the Apostle", a Catholic Church.

As she pointed out to me later, their demeanor instantly changed and they never sat near or spoke to us the rest of the night.

It gets better. After driving off the three men, we were left with the two young ladies to talk to. The young lady sitting right next to us was very friendly and didn't seem to mind that we attended a Catholic church. She noticed that my wife had an engagement ring on and asked her about it. She told the young lady the story behind the ring: my mother gave me an emerald ring that my late father gave her as an anniversary gift to give to my wife as our engagement ring, as I was still getting back on my feet after a recent layoff. My wife told this young lady that I was a tremendous help to her after her father died the previous summer.

Without missing a beat, this young lady said: "I am so sorry about your father. Was he saved?"

I literally had to bite my tongue to stop from saying "No, the doctors tried all they could, but he still died." Anticipating I was going to say something totally inappropriate, my wife grabbed my hand under the table in the classic "No honey STOP!" move any married man instinctively knows and has probably felt once.

With a thousand times more grace and dignity than I could ever muster at that awkward moment, my wife solemnly told this young lady: "We believe that he is at peace with the Lord". This placated her and they went on to talk about our wedding plans as I breathed a sigh of relief.

Later that night as my wife and I danced together she leaned in and whispered in my ear: "You know, when that woman asked 'Was your father saved', I wanted to say 'No you dope, he DIED!'"

To this day my wife and I still tease each other about the "Jesus Dance" we attended.

[Jesurgislac]

I think Vermic's nailed it.

[mmack]

A true story about the fundie zeal for saving souls.

My wife and I attended a party back in 2003 that a good friend of mine was hosting. My friend was a "Born Again" Christian that I met in an after work computer course we were both taking through a local college. He attended a well-known "mega-church" in the northwest Chicago suburbs and invited me along to attend services.

He and another friend would have a party every spring at a restaurant or country club and get about 40 - 100 people to attend. This particular party had dinner and dancing (GASP!), so since my wife and I were officially engaged to be married, I brought her along as my date. She knew the host so she understood we would be "breaking bread" with some fundementalists.

The first tipoff things were going to be different that evening was when we sat down to dinner. We were seated with two other ladies in their late 20's - early 30's and a group of three men of about the same age. The men were talking about attending services at Moody Bible Institute and other known fundementalist churches. We began to talk to them and one of them asked my wife and I where we attended church. In all honesty, even though my wife teases me about it to this day, I drew a blank on the name of our church (I wanted to say Our Lady of Peace, but that's where I attended church when I was much younger). My wife replied "St. Thomas the Apostle", a Catholic Church.

As she pointed out to me later, their demeanor instantly changed and they never sat near or spoke to us the rest of the night.

It gets better. After driving off the three men, we were left with the two young ladies to talk to. The young lady sitting right next to us was very friendly and didn't seem to mind that we attended a Catholic church. She noticed that my wife had an engagement ring on and asked her about it. She told the young lady the story behind the ring: my mother gave me an emerald ring that my late father gave her as an anniversary gift to give to my wife as our engagement ring, as I was still getting back on my feet after a recent layoff. My wife told this young lady that I was a tremendous help to her after her father died the previous summer.

Without missing a beat, this young lady said: "I am so sorry about your father. Was he saved?"

I literally had to bite my tongue to stop from saying "No, the doctors tried all they could, but he still died." Anticipating I was going to say something totally inappropriate, my wife grabbed my hand under the table in the classic "No honey STOP!" move any married man instinctively knows and has probably felt once.

With a thousand times more grace and dignity than I could ever muster at that awkward moment, my wife solemnly told this young lady: "We believe that he is at peace with the Lord". This placated her and they went on to talk about our wedding plans as I breathed a sigh of relief.

Later that night as my wife and I danced together she leaned in and whispered in my ear: "You know, when that woman asked 'Was your father saved', I wanted to say 'No you dope, he DIED!'"

To this day my wife and I still tease each other about the "Jesus Dance" we attended.

[Jesurgislac]

mmack: With a thousand times more grace and dignity than I could ever muster at that awkward moment, my wife solemnly told this young lady: "We believe that he is at peace with the Lord". This placated her and they went on to talk about our wedding plans as I breathed a sigh of relief.

Later that night as my wife and I danced together she leaned in and whispered in my ear: "You know, when that woman asked 'Was your father saved', I wanted to say 'No you dope, he DIED!'"

Sir, your wife is a true lady.

<

[Ursula L]

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."

It's amazing - that someone could think that they could convert someone whom they have just offended.

What is the goal of this type of evangelism? To get the bare-bones message to as many people as possible, without regard as to whether they are convinced? It seems more like a game of freeze-tag than a serious attempt to convince or convert.

Enthusiasm and a sense of purpose are one thing, but this seems as if the goal of evangelism has nothing to do with persuasion...

[mmack]

Sorry 'bout that double post

[Jmiller]

Okay, so the evidence is wrong but the statements actually are correct. If the world is ending in a really horrific fashion starting by the vanishing of one-or-more billion people, then the naturally resulting chaos is going to necessarily mean that people who are trying to preach peace and human unity are either lying or patsies for the next Stalin, Mao, Pinochet and Bush. When the whole of the species gets sucker-punched, the correct response is to get really defensive -- not to open your arms up and/or turn the other cheek. (Up until the end of the world, peace and unity are what we should be working towards with hope and charity for those who espouse them -- but there are limits to hope and charity (and peace and unity) and the sudden depopulation of the world is it.)

Secondly, if billions of people cease to exist and everybody's trying to come up with rational answers while the world is trying to end -- and it's just going to get worse, right, the rapture really is just the beginning of the screwy stuff -- then it's okay for the people preaching "The End is Nigh" to write off the people who are managing to be wantonly ignorant of all of the screwy stuff that's going on in their (soon to be abbreviated) search for rational explanations to all of the screwy stuff that's going on. Really, it took how long to even begin to reverse-engineer the big bang and evolution, how long do you think it'll take to reverse-engineer how God ends the world? I'm guessing at least a lifetime or two longer than the folks like Mr. LaHaye think the species has once the end has begun given that the beginning of the end is a "this is the last generation" offspring elimination.

None of this actually makes the scene believable, though... "Mr Steele" should -- given his realization of what's going on -- count his days left to live, get his money in hand (preferably in gold) and decide how he's going to tick off his remaining days. Popular options include checking into a mental institution, stocking up on guns and ammo and heading for the hills, or ministering to the poor and downtrodden trying to ease their passage out of the ending world. Continuing to fly passenger jets as if the world weren't falling apart? Not so much.

[aunursa]

Ako,
a character who was somewhat familiar with the Bible, but hadn't fully understood and embraced Christianity. And to have that character have a subsequent conversion. But it runs afoul of the Rules of the Universe according to Lehaye and Jenkins. They can't do "redeemable" and "familiar with, but not believing in the Bible".

How do you explain Bruce Barnes?

[MikeJ]

When you discover Mysticism, which you'll need before researching Polytheism, Leonard Nimoy will say unto you:

"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God."
- Cicero

[Jos]

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

Except for the last few lines which, I'm willing to bet, are still nothing more than mysterious, mystical, obscure religious mumbo-jumbo to him.

[Josh D]

Re:"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."

One of those frequently mis-quoted, mis-understood, mis-used sayings of Jesus! In context, Jesus was talking about the need to care more about him than about your family, the things you own, etc. I'm paraphrasing. The actual verse referred to above is Matt 10:34. It's very common in the gospels to see stories about someone being called and saying that they can't follow Jesus, they have something at home that needs attending to. Jesus usually says something like how such people are not worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven.

The interesting thing about all this is the way it's so often misused to justify war, or bullying behavior, or grinding your enemies into the ground. It's obvious that leaving home to follow Jesus would have been sort of a radical decision, and maybe wouldn't be much appreciated by your family, seeing as you leave them holding the bag. This division that occurs amongst families is one of the things Jesus was talking about. Not war. Funny how symbolic language is not really understood to be symbolic. Sort of like the book of Revelation, or the book of Ezekiel (especially 1:16). All that business about living creatures and wheels within wheels just doesn't make any sense. Whatever Ezekiel was talking about, I never understood it.

Re:"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”?
The authors want to make it All Rayford's fault that he got left behind. However, they also want to convert them. And they have no idea how to convert someone aside from having someone spell out the basic information in the Bible slowly enough that the potential convert gets it."

This is again one of those weird problems that L&J seem to have-- the scripture that says "God's word will not return void". It seems their interpretation of this means that it must bear fruit right away (i.e. you proseletyze, and get a convert right away). There's no room for this to happen later. The stumbling block for L&J is that they figure that this applies to everyone, including fictional characters-- so Rayford must have not been paying attention to God's word, otherwise he'd have been saved a long time ago.

The mistake is that while God's word doesn't return void, it doesn't have to work right away. Jesus himself acknowledged this by saying: "And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours" (See John 4:37, 38). It seems apparent that the process of salvation can take longer than 5 minutes.
For whatever reason, L&J don't see it that way, and many evangelical preachers don't either. They're concerned with numbers, and how many "professions of faith" they can produce during a sermon or altar call. They're not interested in being part of a team, of being the reaper on one day, and the sower on the next. They want to be the reaper all the time, because they think that actually saving souls makes them better somehow. This mindset is evident in many of the LB characters-- Rayford, Bruce Barnes, and tons of other converts later on. The failure is that saving souls is not their work, it's God's work. For by grace you are saved through faith.... not of works, lest any man should boast.
Anyway, this is the LaJenkins problem-- how can Rayford go to church for years, and not be saved? It can't be that it took a long time for the truth to sink in, or the rapture to give him a wake up call. He must have simply not been paying attention, because he was a Bad Man, and not a Real True Christian. They had to write Rayford this way because of the small-mindedness of their philosophy.

Ugggh, all this bad L&J writing just makes me sick-- the characters are horribly written, the theology is highly questionable, and there's too many phone calls. There should be a disclaimer on this blog-- "may kill brain cells." And I think it's aggravating my ulcer....ugggh....

Oh, and Yayyyyy for LB Friday!

[Dahne]

No, no, you can't take it literally. It's not just the cheesemakers who are blessed; it's all manufacturers of dairy products.

[Jesurgislac]

Oh good.

I make yoghurt.

[G-Do]

You are knocking em out of the park in this post.

How do you ague with someone who doesn't admit the possibility of good faith contradiction?

You can't. This odious "Deep-Down" hypothesis short-circuits the learning process.

If I believe X, and believe that everyone else believes X as well, then I can't take seriously anyone who claims not-X. If I happen to be wrong about X, there is no way anyone can ever tell me otherwise, since I have effectively shut off a major avenue for self-correction. I have embraced a learning disability. I have willingly become retarded.

Put it another way: if you programmed an AI - a learning computer program - to act this way, it would probably turn into a dumbass. Clearly, the only social utility in such a rule is in keeping your people - be they your children or your vassals - from learning that your way is suboptimal and rejecting you. Having your people find better ways of doing things is great if you're an egalitarian who likes to constantly learn and better himself/herself. If you're a solipsistic RTC goon who fears the instability inherent in the outside world, it sucks.

[pepperjackcandy]

It seems pretty implausible that he'd rise to prominence in any church, even a Unitarian one.

Them's making-you-sit-down-and-discuss-this-rationally-over-coffee words, there, Lax tool! 8-)

I know that there are politically-conservative UUs, but most of us are more the tree-hugging hippie type.

[Robb]

Except for the last few lines which, I'm willing to bet, are still nothing more than mysterious, mystical, obscure religious mumbo-jumbo to him.

That and the instructions to the various churches at the beginning, which I'm sure Rayford would assume only applied to those people in the original historical context. "F***** Preterists" he would say before pouring his hot coffee on Hattie's face & telling her Jesus loves her.

[Ken]

How do you explain Bruce Barnes? -- Aunursa

Oracle for plot-point idiot explanations.

"WARNING! THIS IS A PLOT COMPLICATION!
WARNING! THIS IS A PLOT COMPLICATION!"
-- "Star Drek" by Bobby Pickett(?)

[ako]

How do you explain Bruce Barnes?

Okay, that's got me stumped. I checked the Bruce Barnes bits, and he says he thought he believed, but didn't get raptured. Then he goes off about lack of zeal, which would makes sense, except for how that completely undermines the "faith alone" thing. So apparently, there's a way of thinking you believe, but not believing?

My bad for thinking I could apply logic.

[Ken]

This is again one of those weird problems that L&J seem to have-- the scripture that says "God's word will not return void". It seems their interpretation of this means that it must bear fruit right away (i.e. you proseletyze, and get a convert right away). There's no room for this to happen later. -- Josh D

Guess they never heard of "planting a seed" and waiting for it to grow. Or that one man can plant a seed and another reap the harvest at a later time.

Problem with "THE END IS NEAR!" (or is that NIGH!) theology is it telescopes everything into RIGHT NOW! (I am reminded of some Big Name Child Evangelist from my college days -- "CHRIST IS COMING SOON! WE MIGHT NOT HAVE A 1978! OR EVEN A 1977!" It is now 2007.) The Christianese version of Instant Gratification -- it's not enough to plant the seed, you have to reap the harvest (converts/notches on your Bible) IMMEDIATELY! (See prior post on Wretched Urgency.) As if God is too dumb to let the seed grow (or if The End does come, judge it on whether or how much it sprouted) without The Born Again Christian dictating how He is to do it.

Don't know where I heard this one: "A fanatic is someone who does what God would do, If God Only Knew What Was REALLY Going On."

[jamoche]

"God's word will not return void"

God is obviously not a C programmer.

[mcc]

God is obviously not a C programmer.

The general consensus, as far as I am aware, is that God would program in LISP.

[Jim]

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.

OK, I can see a boat that provides medical services being a draw for evangelization in Africa, and probably in some of the countries that surround the Black Sea as well, but Sweden? Sweden—and Western Europe in general—has, famously, more accessible health care than the United States.

Are they just denying that so much of Western 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?

L&J say "erudite" so much without ever showing us reading anything that it's hard to say what they think about such people. Just more of their practice of telling rather than showing. This is especially inexcusible when you think how easy it would have been to show the erudition. The surprised looks he got when reading his Bible could have been accompanied by "What happened to the Rilke?" (It's Friday afternoon and I, like the authors cannot be arsed to write believable dialogue.)

Also (and I know that similar themes have been explored here, but I still cannot get over this), it's been a week since the dozens (hundreds?) of plane crashes caused by the Event. It's still unexplained, unless you count that electro-magicalism thing that could presumably reoccur at any time. Yet, there have been no changes in flight procedures for commercial airliners. Remember when after the hijacking of four airplanes on 9/11 there were major changes in security that caused massive disruption? Or even the security procedures that were put into place in the 70s (IIRC) after a rash of hijackings? How could the authors not have considered this? Or (more likely) did they simply not care?

[Ken]

That and the instructions to the various churches at the beginning, which I'm sure Rayford would assume only applied to those people in the original historical context. "F***** Preterists" he would say before pouring his hot coffee on Hattie's face & telling her Jesus loves her. -- Robb

You know, I'm kind of an offbeat Partial Preterist whose Church is officially Amil. My take on the whole situation is that the Letters to the Seven Churches are not only seven actual churches of the time of writing, but seven RL churches that express patterns of how a church can miss the mark. We have one church that's on-target "faithful" and six that have messed up in some way, and the six that have messed up are also archetype examples illustrating ways churches can mess up.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are similar, an archetype of a pattern that will repeat over and over in human history -- you make a godlike figure out of The Man on the White Horse, and he leads you (intentionally or accidentally) into War, Famine, and Pestilence to where Death and Hell are the only winners. Sort of "Don't put trust worthy of God in politicians that look too good to be true." (Plus a lot of inside digs on the rich never being inconvenienced while the poor starve and the absentee-landlord cash-crop economy inflicted on Asia in John's time and untold colonies and Third World countries since.)

As for the plagues -- seals, trumpets, vials, wives, how many are going to St Ives? -- I understand that in Classical Hebrew, going over the same sequence with different symbolism is a way of emphasis. Maybe the Seals are the Trumpets are the Vials and John is just going over it again and again with different imagery to make a point: THIS IS IMPORTANT, if nothing else.

[Nate Winchester]

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.

I must politely disagree Fred. Well... disagree in part.
I'm sure your statement applies to some, but I think also a that a lot of the hestitation draws from the golden rule, even if it's unconscious. So some people are conflicted because on the one hand they know they should proselytize but on the other, they know they wouldn't want someone to just come up to them at random and give them a sales pitch.
That's my thought anyway.

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..."

Wow, now that's just bad writing. I've heard of showing vs telling but I'd forgotten these books actually HAD a litterally showing vs telling. Now I'm tempted to join a writing seminar by Jenkins just to slap him. (preferrably with one of his books as an object lesson on why you don't want to artificially inflate your novels)

...Stalin, Mao, Pinochet and Bush.
Ok, I'm sorry but that's just really tacky. Lumping Bush (no matter what you think of him) with these other true and genuine monsters not only downplays their evil, but also does a grave disservice to their victims. (not to mention the "cry wolf" phenomenan you're courting) The very fact that you're allowed to post such a thing about him without you are your family ending up in the gulag or worse invalidates the statement immediately.

Really, it took how long to even begin to reverse-engineer the big bang and evolution, how long do you think it'll take to reverse-engineer how God ends the world?

Ummm... reverse engineering means that you take something apart and then build a new one based upon what you discovered. As far as I know, we haven't exactly taken evolution or the big bang apart, nor have we recrated them new.

If I believe X, and believe that everyone else believes X as well, then I can't take seriously anyone who claims not-X. If I happen to be wrong about X, there is no way anyone can ever tell me otherwise, since I have effectively shut off a major avenue for self-correction. I have embraced a learning disability. I have willingly become retarded.

Of course, this is a pretty common aspect of all humanity, not exclusively fundamentalists. (after all, how often do the right and left say the above about the other?)

The general consensus, as far as I am aware, is that God would program in LISP.
Please, God programs in perl.

Rambo-Jesus, so I suppose that doesn't apply either.
Rambo-Jesus rocks.

[Ken]

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. -- Lou

This wouldn't happen to be the S.S. Anastasis, would it?

OK, I can see a boat that provides medical services being a draw for evangelization in Africa, and probably in some of the countries that surround the Black Sea as well, but Sweden? Sweden—and Western Europe in general—has, famously, more accessible health care than the United States. -- Jim

Maybe they didn't do medical services in Sweden, just evangelization. Though nominally Christian, Western Europe doesn't have that much of their nominally-Christian population actually practicing (especially American-style Evangelicals). It's one of the reasons behind the fear of a future Eurabian Islamic Republic, as one of the things Euro-Muslims are good at is practice and zeal (and relative population growth).

[mcc]

Please, God programs in perl.

And it is suddenly clear why there is so much suffering in the world

[Lax Tool]

Oops, sorry pepperjackcandy. I was thinking that Rayford seems pretty ignorant about the Bible for someone in a leadership position in a Church. I was using Unitarian for an extreme example, which may not be fair since I've never actually been to a Unitarian church.

[Jim]

Maybe they didn't do medical services in Sweden, just evangelization.

That sounds logical. Not to traffic in stereotypes here, but do you think they thought they were more successful in Sweden simply because Swedes are less likely than Americans or the English to simply tell a stranger that he is being annoying and should fuck off?

[Robb]

Ken - I personally feel that any responsible reader of any Biblical prophecy should at the very least thoroughly examine a preterist perspective, regarldess of what their conclusions might be. L&J's (and everyone else of their theological ilk) dismissal of the symbolic & metaphorical qualities of the Biblical narrative is . . . well, let's just say it upsets me.

[cjmr]

Maybe they didn't do medical services in Sweden, just evangelization.

It's possible they go to Sweden because the ship was of Swedish registry. I had a friend from a former church I attended who was a (ship's) pilot for Doctors without Borders, and he sailed on ships with many different registries.

[Bugmaster]

God most certainly wrote in Lisp (mp3 link, lyrics here). All Perl heretics shall be smitten with lightning bolts. Repeatedly.

Anyway, I am frequently told by Christians that I really do believe in God, I just don't know it. Usually, the conversation goes like this:

Them: You're not really an atheist, Bugmaster.
Bugmaster: I don't believe in any god. Doesn't that make me an atheist ?
Them: Aw, no, you're a good person. You're a believer, you just don't know it.

The reasoning here is that, in the classic Christian worldview, atheists are evil tools of the devil. Thus, any person who is not 100% evil cannot be an atheist. It's fairly simple.

[bulbul]

Though nominally Christian, Western Europe doesn't have that much of their nominally-Christian population actually practicing (especially American-style Evangelicals)
I'd venture a guess and say that it's because there are not that many American-style evangelicals in Europe. Also, our spirituality is a bit different from yours. And finally, not practicing? That one isn't even worth commenting. Just because we don't talk about it every day doesn't mean our churches are full. They are.

It's one of the reasons behind the fear of a future Eurabian Islamic Republic, as one of the things Euro-Muslims are good at is practice and zeal (and relative population growth).
So we will be taken over by the Caliphate (Republic? Please...) because we don't worship enough? Woe is us and thank God for the American missionaries who will not only save our souls, but also our cities from mosque infestation!

Maybe they didn't do medical services in Sweden, just evangelization.
Sounds about right.
There is something inherently funny about Mormon missionaries 'evangelizing' in the shadow of a 600-year old cathedral...

[car]

(Longtime reader, seldom poster)

I can explain the Bruce Barnes thing in agonizing detail - see, there's "head knowledge", which is a very close cousin to the evilness of actual knowledge and smarts and all that erudite edumacation stuff they're all afeared of, and then there's "heart knowledge", which is the real thing. From the fundie evangelical point of view, it's perfectly possible to know the Bible backwards and forwards, believe every single word is true (to their interpretation), and still not be saved. Because it's not enough to just believe Jesus died for your sins, and it's not enough to even go do good things in his name and thinking you're doing his work, you have to really have a huge emotional conversion wherein you surrender all of your will to said Jesus, and usually cry some in the process. If you don't do that part, no dice. One of the boogeymen of the evangelicals is the person who "thinks" they're saved because they know it all with that infernal book learnin', but hasn't really incorporated it all into every fiber of their mental being.

What is the goal of this type of evangelism? To get the bare-bones message to as many people as possible, without regard as to whether they are convinced? It seems more like a game of freeze-tag than a serious attempt to convince or convert.

At least that's honest, which is better than the alternative. The other way they go about it is to befriend people specifically to gain their trust so that they'll listen to the gospel message. So "Hey, want to come to a party with me?" isn't a real invitation to hang out, it's trying to get close enough so the person doesn't flinch when you whip out the Bible on their ass. It's often combined with the one-two punch, in which the hanging out party is itself an evangelical activity sponsored by the church.

(I grew up fundie evie. I was made to do this stuff. I'm a bit bitter.)

As for an 80s version of the movie, you'd have to get Steve Guttenberg in there somewhere. Maybe as Chaim?

[Salamanda]

thank God for the American missionaries who will not only save our souls, but also our cities from mosque infestation!

Yeah, but I hate the smell of mosqueballs.

[Kenneth R. Morefield]

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?
******************************************************************
As for an 80s version of the movie, you'd have to get Steve Guttenberg in there somewhere. Maybe as Chaim?
********************************************************************************************
Maybe we could get O.J. to play Bruce....he has experience running through airports and I haven't seen him in a movie in a while, so I think he's available.

What's O.J. been up to since the Naked Gun movies, I wonder? You never hear about him any more.