L.B.: Knockin' on Heaven's Door

Left Behind, pp. 395-397

After hearing Rayford Steele's impassioned sales pitch for faith in "the Antichrist and all," Buck Williams is rethinking his own beliefs. At the same time, Jerry Jenkins is busy rewriting the preceding 21 chapters of his book, letting us know, retroactively, about things he had neglected or even denied earlier.

Part of that rewriting process here involves a fuller picture of the substance of Rayford's speech. Based on the rather sketchy accounts of that speech we've gotten so far, his key point was that the Trip and Die guys were a (disappointingly flameless) version of something predicted in Revelation, meaning the Antichrist would be here soon.

If one heard Rayford's speech the way it has been thus far described, and if one believed him, then the reasonable response would be something like stockpiling food and water and heading for the hills. That is, in fact, exactly what Jesus says to do. In the "mini-apocalypse" in Matthew's Gospel (Chapter 24), Jesus says:

When you see standing in the holy place "the abomination that causes desolation," spoken of through the prophet Daniel -- let the reader understand -- then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now -- and never to be equaled again.

Many biblical scholars will tell you that the "abomination that causes desolation" is a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration of the Temple and to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., but that's not important here.

What matters here is what Rayford, LaHaye and Jenkins believe this passage means. They believe this corresponds to the rise of the Antichrist as described in their End Times Checklist. The abominable Nicolae Carpathia may not yet be standing in the holy place -- Rayford and his friends may still have a little time to go back for their cloaks -- but he's quickly slouching in that direction, so what are they still sitting around for? No one heeds or even seems to notice Jesus' explicit, and very logical seeming, advice for those in what they believe is their precise situation: Run! Run for your lives! Fly, you fools!

These aren't the sorts of things the authors want Buck to be contemplating as he paces through the night. They don't want him worrying about famine, plagues, locusts, the seas turning to blood, the Mark of the Beast, or any of that. They want him to be worrying about the salvation of his soul.

From what we've seen so far, Rayford didn't say much of anything to Buck about salvation or souls. No problem, Jenkins will just go back and insert it from here in the following chapter.

Thus we get the following Standard Christian Fiction Conversion Scene. These two paragraphs could have been (and maybe even were) lifted verbatim from any Christian Brand work of fiction available at your local Christian bookstore. All Jenkins did here was insert the names of his own characters:

Buck was on a personal quest now, looking to satisfy deep needs. For so many years he had rejected the idea of a personal God or that he had need of God -- if there were one. The idea would take some getting used to. Captain Steele had talked about everyone being a sinner. Buck was not unrealistic about that. He knew his life would never stand up to the standards of a Sunday School teacher. But he had always hoped that if he faced God someday, his good would outweigh his bad and that relatively speaking, he was as good or better than the next guy. That would have to do.

Now, if Rayford Steele and all his Bible verses could be believed, it didn't make any difference how good Buck was or where he stood in relation to anybody else. One archaic phrase had struck him and rolled around in his head. There is none righteous, no, not one. Well, he had never considered himself righteous. Could he go to the next level and admit his need for God, for forgiveness, for Christ?

This is the masculine version of the standard preconversion scene, hence the football-coach lingo there -- "go to the next level." The feminine version tends to read more like something from a romance novel with lots of talk of "finally yielding" and "surrendering" and "offering herself up" (to Christ, of course).

This boilerplate doesn't fit here. It doesn't fit with Buck's character (to use that term generously) as we've seen it developed (to use that term extremely generously) over the previous 400 pages. Buck, as we've come to know him thus far, is a man whose self-concept is wholly out of proportion to his actual self. He's a 30-year-old virgin who imagines himself a worldly wise rogue. He's an unprincipled coward, willing to cut a deal with his friend's murderers to save his own skin, yet he imagines himself a hero. And he's a deadline-skipping, story-burying hack who imagines himself the subject of his peers' jealous fantasies.

That gap between who he really is and who he imagines himself to be is not sustainable. At some point, maybe just out of the corner of his eye, Buck is going to catch a devastating glimpse of who and what he really is. That will be an epiphany he may not even survive. That realization really would give him the sweaty chills and set him pacing through the long, dark night. Compared to that, the abstract argument of "Rayford Steele and all his Bible verses" is weak tea. Rayford's pitch, as described in this boilerplate insert, could never convince Buck to "admit his need" because Buck has never felt such a need. Need isn't something you can be easily talked into.

The mention of Buck's "personal quest ... to satisfy deep needs" might hint at some previously unsuggested longing for meaning on his part, but I'm not buying that either. Buck's pursuit of meaning and purpose, such as it is, has taken the form of his work, his vocation as a reporter. In Buck's case, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, that source of meaning has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried. It's too soon for Buck to give up on his notion that being a great reporter might give his life meaning because he's barely even trying to be a great reporter.

It may be that Buck is heading down a dead end street, but he is making so little progress doing so that he shouldn't yet realize that he's going to have to turn around. Buck isn't all that different from the vast majority of those who suspect that, platitudes to the contrary, money might buy them happiness. Most such people will never have enough money to credibly test that theory. Until they do, they will never think, "Ah, I should look elsewhere for meaning," but only, "How can I get more money than I have now?" A counterfeit dream, half-heartedly pursued, is indistinguishable from a real one.

Nor does this awkwardly inserted Standard Conversion Scene fit, at all, with what we have been previously told of the actual contents of Rayford's speech. I've previously mentioned Rayford's strange confusion of evangelism and "prophecy." His idea of evangelizing, up until now, has been portrayed as offering an outline of the End Times Checklist while insisting, without ever demonstrating, that it has all been foretold in the Bible. He's never mentioned Jesus, sin, salvation, God's love, forgiveness or redemption.

That approach, as we discussed earlier, is completely unrecognizable to most evangelicals who tend to think of evangelism as presenting the gospel through some formal construct like the Four Spiritual Laws, the Romans Road, the Wordless Book or the Bridge Illustration. Rayford's "evangelism" hasn't followed any such standard approach. He hasn't even made use of the requisite Hypothetical Bus even though, if he were right about the checklist, he could point to a fast-approaching Rider on a Pale Horse and note that the current best-case scenario involves his listeners meeting their maker in less than seven years.

But now, suddenly, we're told that Rayford did, in fact, work some kind of more traditional gospel message into his speech about the checklist and "the Antichrist and all," including quoting Romans 3:10, "There is none righteous, no, not one."*

I am trying to imagine how this could work. "Jesus loves you, your sins are forgiven" is not easily combined with Wormwood falling from the sky and locusts given the power of scorpions to torture men and the plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur from the mouths of horses with heads like lions. "So you see, Buck, God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Well, not for your life. Your life, the six years and 11 months that's left of it, will consist of suffering divine wrath in the form of seven seals, seven trumpets, seven plagues and seven bowls, each worse than the last. Let me describe those for you in detail ..."

The only way I can imagine fusing those two messages into one would be to promise Buck that he will experience Hell on earth and Heaven when he dies (soon, and violently). That's a connection through disconnection. It's a message so heavenly minded that it's no earthly good.

As Jenkins continues to revise and extend Rayford's earlier remarks, we learn that he also somehow worked good old Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John into his Antichrist speech:

Was it possible? Could he [Buck] be on the cusp of becoming a born-again Christian? He had been almost relieved when Rayford Steele had used that term. Buck had read and even written about "those kinds" of people, but even at his level of worldly wisdom he had never quite understood the phrase. He had always considered the "born-again" label akin to "ultraright-winger" or "fundamentalist." Now, if he chose to take a step he had never dreamed of taking, if he could not somehow talk himself out of this truth he could no longer intellectually ignore, he would also take upon himself a task: educating the world on what that confusing little term really meant.

Note again the contrast between intellect and intellectual honesty -- the two are constantly presented as opposites in Left Behind.

I'm not sure why Buck "had never quite understood" the meaning of "born again" or why he finds the term "confusing." Born. That word we know. Again. That one, too. Born again. Not terribly complicated. As the other John said, it would be just like starting over. The idea of starting over, a second chance, a clean slate -- that's not at all confusing.

What is confusing in the paragraph quoted above is what Buck takes this to mean now that, he suggests, he finally really understands the phrase. That confusion isn't specifically the authors' fault. It's part of a larger confusion in American evangelicalism that we've discussed before as the pyramid marketing scheme of the contentless gospel: "The good news is that now you can tell others the good news." (Yes, but what is that news? "To tell others the news." But this news you're going to be telling them, what is it? "That they can tell others the good news, too." Yes, but ...)

Buck nearly grasps something even more confusing. The hyphenated compound adjective "born-again" has become a label for attitudes and connotations that seem wholly incompatible with the simpler, more obvious implications of the term. Here's a group of people that chooses to self-identify with a phrase that announces that they have themselves needed a second chance. They are proclaiming that they are the second-chancers, the do-overs, the mulligan-takers, the fuss-ups and muck-ups who have had to return to Square One. We'd expect that such a group would be marked by a generosity of spirit toward others that reflected the generosity they have, themselves, benefitted from. Yet instead we find, as Buck says, a group of "ultraright-wingers" whose foremost defining characteristic for those both within and without the group -- according to the born-againers at the Barna Research Group -- is "excessive contempt and unloving attitudes."

Buck says he intends to start "educating the world on what that confusing little term really meant." I wish by that he meant that he wanted to start correcting this contradiction of being the unforgiving forgiven. But, of course, what Buck really means is that he's decided the ultraright-wingers are right and so therefore he intends to become just like them.

That contradiction -- the contrast between what it ought to mean to refer to oneself as a second-chancer and what it actually seems to mean in our culture -- somehow reminds me of this:

The kingdom of God is like a king who decided to square accounts with his servants. As he got under way, one servant was brought before him who had run up a debt of $100,000. He couldn't pay up, so the king ordered the man, along with his wife, children, and goods, to be auctioned off at the slave market.

The poor wretch threw himself at the king's feet and begged, "Give me a chance and I'll pay it all back." Touched by his plea, the king let him off, erasing the debt.

The servant was no sooner out of the room when he came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him $10. He seized him by the throat and demanded, "Pay up. Now!"

The poor wretch threw himself down and begged, "Give me a chance and I'll pay it all back." But he wouldn't do it. He had him arrested and put in jail until the debt was paid. When the other servants saw this going on, they were outraged and brought a detailed report to the king.

The king summoned the man and said, "You evil servant! I forgave your entire debt when you begged me for mercy. Shouldn't you be compelled to be merciful to your fellow servant who asked for mercy?" The king was furious and put the screws to the man until he paid back his entire debt.

That parable illustrates part of why I find Buck's soul-searching so unconvincing. As impressed as he claims to be with "There is none righteous, no not one," he still sees himself more as somebody owing $10 than as somebody owing $100,000.

That's also related to why the connotations of "born-again" are so different than what the phrase would seem to suggest on its own. The label brings to mind people who are convinced that they owe God $10, but that everybody else owes him a lot more. Those others, they seem to think, really deserve debtor's prison, or Hell, or Tribulation. Those others deserve to be Left Behind.

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

* St. Paul himself was quoting the 14th Psalm, so evangelists have to be particularly careful when citing this passage. If they were to open their Bibles to Psalms rather than to Romans, they might accidentally convert someone to Judaism instead of Christianity.

Comments

[zzyzx]

"If they were to open their Bibles to Psalms rather than to Romans, they might accidentally convert someone to Judaism instead of Christianity."

That would be a pretty long and detailed accident there, seeing how Judaism discourages conversions unless they're really serious about it.

[Geds]

Many biblical scholars will tell you that the "abomination that causes desolation" is a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration of the Temple and to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., but that's not important here.

Antiochus Epiphanes pre-dated Jesus by a good two centuries. He was a Seleucid king from around 200 BCE. The Maccabean Revolt was made against him. I did a paper on it to finish up my B.A.

[Robert]

"How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!"

I thought there were no more pregnant women and nursing mothers after the rapture?

[Geds]

I thought there were no more pregnant women and nursing mothers after the rapture?

Yeah, but Jesus didn't know that. He had to wait 1800 years for the flow charts like the rest of us...

[Spalanzani]

I'm pretty sure Fred is intending those two phrases ("Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration of the Temple and to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E") as two different events.

[mmack]

I am trying to imagine how this could work. "Jesus loves you, your sins are forgiven" is not easily combined with Wormwood falling from the sky and locusts given the power of scorpions to torture men and the plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur from the mouths of horses with heads like lions.

Fred,

Given how L&J screwed up Eli and Moe and the Trip and Fall guys, I'd imagine they could take torturous locusts, and horses with lion's heads that breathe fire and make that completely dull.

I mean, who'd be convinced to convert after reading L&J's take on that?

[Sarah Dylan Breuer]

Geds, I think Fred is saying that many scholars consider the apocalyptic talk in the gospels as being BOTH a reflection on Antiochus Epiphanies' defiling the Temple (about which Daniel was most probably written) AND the immanent (in the case of Mark) or recent (in the case of Matthew and Luke) coming of war and destruction of the Temple.

And Fred, it's true that "evangelism" LB-style differs markedly from the "Four Spiritual Laws" brand. With all of the suffering that God is inflicting on people -- including the inexplicable loss of their children -- and with the absolutely horrific suffering they say Jesus is about to inflict on any unlucky enough to survive, LB-style evangelism can't say, as the "Four Spiritual Laws" crowd do, that God loves you. All they can do is sell "fire insurance" -- not that God will spare you from much of the suffering to come over the next six years, but that at least you'll be spared having your intestines extruded by Jesus when he comes and eternal hellfire after that.

Good News? Nope. But that's LB -- not Good News, but the opportunity to feel smugly superior to those who have very, very Bad News coming.

[Keith]

He knew his life would never stand up to the standards of a Sunday School teacher.
That's the criteria we're supposed to be shooting for? Then Ned Flanders is apparently the epitome of True Christian living.

[nonreligioustype]

Long time reader, first time poster. Sorry to go back to a subject from last week, but I didn't get to the post until yesterday. Concerning Contemporary Christian Music, I am in full agreement with all, in the words of Alfred E. Newman....Yeccchhhh! However, a born-again friend of mine turned me onto this video and song about seven years ago and I still love it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynQDoQUQ5-U

[Abelardus]

What personally bothers me about the End Times mania is that PMDs go on and on about how terrible the Tribulation's gonna be: "Things will go from bad to worse -- the earth will experience suffering like it's never seen!" But the fact is the world's already suffering; downtrodden people the world over need comfort, not some obsure eschatology rammed down their throats.

I just had to post something before the comments become too numerous. Wonderful as always, Fred.

[Dan]

When I read this section, I see another of Lahaye and Jenkins' repeated, not-so-subtle attacks on everybody who disagrees with their theology. The difficulty with Buck-the-system Williams' internal dialogue is that it's weighted down with arrows aimed at all stinkin' liberal news-media types who love to mock Christians and their silly ways. By having the GIRAT suddenly see the error in his ways, to see him come face-to-face with his misperceptions about Christians, to have him say "I was wrong, and the Premillenial Dispensationalist Fundamentalist Evangelicals (Wheaton Synod) were right!" is the ultimate coup for LaJenkins. Their way of saying "neener neener. You media folks think you're so smart. Just you wait and see who's right in the end!"

[Abelardus]

... having the GIRAT suddenly see the error in his ways ... is the ultimate coup for LaJenkins.

"Mark my words -- your uppance will come!"

[Abelardus]

Addendum: Actually, Dan, I suspect that's half the thrill the "initiated" get in reading these novels. The second half? That maybe these potboilers will scare "smug liberals" into going under the divine knife.

But what do I know?

[J]

*Flexes typin' knuckles, unseals tin of Ol' Time Theodicy Argument Thread:*

"There is none righteous, no not one..."

That's a purty fine sentiment, Fred and you and Jesus both say it with all the fervor of believing it to be true.

But it isn't. I'm sorry but I'm not going to allow the proposition: There are righteous. Or relatively righteous. Some people do good things and others do bad things. Usually in some combination. Sigh, yeah I suppose everybody can be said to have done something like take two cookies instead of one at kindergarten snack time or else use the copier at work to xerox their ass. But I'm sorry, that doesn't put them on the same plane as the rapist, the genocide [genocidist? genocidiac?], the arms dealer, the slave trader, etc.

Conversely, there are some really, really kind and generous people out there. Churlish oaf that I am, I'm going to have to point out that what a lot of them have in common is they are not participants in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

I know I'm hacking at the root of Christian charity here but I'm just getting a blue screen of mental death whenever I try and run the program that says, "There are none righteous." To say that we owe God $100,000 worth of righteousness seems like Seymour Skinner casually letting slip that, "Mother insists I retroactively pay her for all the food I ate as a child."

[Richard Hershberger]

"It's too soon for Buck to give up on his notion that being a great reporter might give his life meaning because he's barely even trying to be a great reporter."

Buck's approach to reporting reminds me a bit of Fred Thompson's approach to running for president.

[Abelardus]

... they are not participants in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

Aren't you downplaying all the good that the Jew/Christian/Muslim potentially and actively does? As an individual and as a community? That's a rather monolithic view of the Abrahamic faiths -- none of which are monolithic by any means.

[Richard Hershberger]

'He had always considered the "born-again" label akin to "ultraright-winger" or "fundamentalist."'

The GIRAT has never heard of Jimmy Carter?

[Dylan]

At some point, maybe just out of the corner of his eye, Buck is going to catch a devastating glimpse of who and what he really is. That will be an epiphany he may not even survive. That realization really would give him the sweaty chills and set him pacing through the long, dark night.

This could have actually made an interesting conversion under different circumstances. If you come 30 years to realize the life that you prided yourself on has been smoke and mirrors fooling yourself and those around you into believing you are important, then where else are you going to go? If Buck made it through that epiphany without imploding, a good start might be to re-evaluate his concept of what makes a person important, which is something the gospel addresses (if not directly, at least by implication).

Of course, that's going to take a little more time, effort, and soul-searching than saying "hey, look, the End Times Checklist is true!"

[damnedyankee]

The GIRAT has never heard of Jimmy Carter?

"O, speak not his name!" the LB fans wail and gnash amongst themselves...

[Darkrose]

Yeah, but Jesus didn't know that. He had to wait 1800 years for the flow charts like the rest of us...

"My PowerPoint: let me show you it!"

[Rivikah]

J: I suspect the logical problem you're having with the statement "There is none righteous" might have something to do with the understanding of the word "righteous" Your interpretation is a perfectly valid definition, but it's definitely different from what many of those inside Christianity hear in that passage.

[mcc]

"If they were to open their Bibles to Psalms rather than to Romans, they might accidentally convert someone to Judaism instead of Christianity."

That would be a pretty long and detailed accident there

Mr. Bean: Evangelical Christian

[Toby]

J: There are righteous. Or relatively righteous.

Relatively, i.e. not completely, i.e., not truly. There are people who are not truly righteous. That's perfectly consistent with Romans 3 / Psalm 14 / Psalm 53.

But I'm sorry, that doesn't put them on the same plane as the rapist, the genocide [genocidist? genocidiac?], the arms dealer, the slave trader, etc.

Depends on what plane you're talking about.

Conversely, there are some really, really kind and generous people out there. Churlish oaf that I am, I'm going to have to point out that what a lot of them have in common is they are not participants in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

I doubt this claim is going to come as a surprise (or source of disagreement) to any reader of this blog, let alone the writer of this blog.

mmack, L'Ahoy and Jangles do indeed manage to make all the supernatural stuff in the series dull. In fairness ("spoiler" alert) the evangelists actually do breathe fire in a later book, just like Godzilla. There goes Tokyo, er, Tel Aviv.

[lucidity]

Did Jesus really *say* "let the reader understand" in the middle of that warning? I guess, being God and all, He knew His words were being transcribed for later distribution in a printed medium.

[Blackadder]

Darn it! I went incognito. Just when I was being snarky too...

[cjmr]

Did Jesus really *say* "let the reader understand" in the middle of that warning?

The way it's set off in the NRSV, it looks like it's Matthew who's saying 'let the reader understand'.

*goes off to get the Comparative NT*

[Abelardus]

Mr. Bean: Evangelical Christian

Do you mean the character or Rowan Atkinson who portrays him? Or did I not get the punchline of an exquisite joke? Please explain; seriously -- I'm thick like that.

[Jos]

Now, if he chose to take a step he had never dreamed of taking, if he could not somehow talk himself out of this truth he could no longer intellectually ignore

For someone so capable of persuading himself that he's someone he so obviously is not, it astounds me that Buck doesn't manage this trivial little step of self-delusion.

Actually, it may not even be self-delusion. All he needs to do is tell himself that God's a giant dick (not too tall of an order, I would think) and then he doesn't need to become a born-againer. Sure, he may have to deal with the fact that God exists, but that doesn't mean he to start believing in the guy.

[Abelardus]

Argh! I get it now!

"Oho, ho! Is funny because he is a bungler and converting someone to Judaism is contrary to the evangelical Christian doctrine...."

[Geds]

Did Jesus really *say* "let the reader understand" in the middle of that warning?

It's an editorial comment. And it adds a certain bit of credence to the idea that it was referring to things like the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., seeing as how Matthew was written about a decade or three after that...

[fermion]

>>That would be a pretty long and detailed accident there

>Mr. Bean: Evangelical Christian

Do you mean the character or Rowan Atkinson who portrays him? Or did I not get the punchline of an exquisite joke? Please explain; seriously -- I'm thick like that.

I believe the point is that Mr. Bean is quite prone to long and detailed accidents.

[Blackadder]

Toby, I don't presume to speak for Fred but I imagine if you scratch his cosmopolitan veneer hard enough he is some kind of Christian and does indeed believe deep down that we are all unrighteous, damned sinners who need Jesus. He can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

[Blackadder]

Toby, I don't presume to speak for Fred but I imagine if you scratch his cosmopolitan veneer hard enough he is some kind of Christian and does indeed believe deep down that we are all unrighteous, damned sinners who need Jesus. He can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

[cjmr]

Did Jesus really *say* "let the reader understand" in the middle of that warning?

Of the eight versions in my CNT, some give the impression that it's Matthew saying that bit.

The way it's phrased in other translations, it looks like it could mean "Let the reader (of this passage in Daniel I'm referring to) understand".

My Latin's not good enough to try the Vulgate, and my Biblical Greek is still non-existent--maybe hapax or bulbul could help?

[Anna]

Ah, the Conversion Scene(tm). My problem with these has been that none of them manage to get it quite right (no not one, ahhaha), and every one that gets it wrong risks invalidating some aspect of a reader's personal conversion. I've seen people become Christians enthusiastically, read tonnes of the fiction very quickly, and then retroactively engineer for themselves a conversion story that is similar to these scenes. Which is not helpful, because it means that whenever they talk to others about (or even just consider for themselves) what being a Christian means, they predicate a lot of their talk on stories that are constructed to be 'like others' or 'inspirational' in the manner of these Conversion Scenes (tm), rather than on the actual processes that led the to the faith.

My other big problem with Buck here is how oddly impersonal his conversion seems. In the paragraph beginning 'Was it possible' Buck's thought processes seem to go something like this: "Maybe I should become a Christian. Damn those liberals, they don't understaaaaand me/us!' There's a whole lot of focusing on others going on for Buck, and oddly little introspection. Buck doesn't go on any journeys here: his self-concept remains the same, essentially. Part of that is because Jenkins is a bad writer, but part of it also makes me wonder if that's how L&J actually perceive a model conversion to go: little actual soul-searching and lots of buying into whatever 'ultra-rightwinger' mindset is currently in vogue. Per Buck, I'm halfway to True Conversion (tm) just by registering Republican. That's a little disturbing to me.

[Abelardus]

He can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Fred's not one to pull a deus ex machina; isn't that usually so? Once he's given us the law from heaven, we mere mortals have to puzzle it out, interpret it according to flawed human reason and hope we're doing right by his words?

Not to badmouth, Fred -- I just find that midrashic/rabbinical explanation of interpreting the law interesting: "The law's out of God's hands and into ours, rough-hew them how we will."

[JohnR]

J: To say that we owe God $100,000 worth of righteousness seems like Seymour Skinner casually letting slip that, "Mother insists I retroactively pay her for all the food I ate as a child."

Worse than that - after all, Skinner actually *did* eat as a child.

Saying that we owe God righteousness is like claiming we owe waffles to The Headless Horseman.

[Toby]

Blackadder: Toby, I don't presume to speak for Fred but I imagine if you scratch his cosmopolitan veneer hard enough he is some kind of Christian and does indeed believe deep down that we are all unrighteous, damned sinners who need Jesus. He can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I'd like to think he believes something like that, too (except from the suggestion that we are all doomed to damnation for our unrighteousness). However, that in no way conflicts with cosmopolitanism--I figure his cosmopolitanism runs deep and isn't just a veneer. Nor does it conflict with J's claim that there are "some really, really kind and generous people out there", and that they aren't at all confined to a particular religious category.

[Spherical Time]

Okay, before anything else, a bit of self promotion: I added this post at Right Behind. Please check it out. If you're interested in signing up there, let me know and I'll get you set up: email me at worldsandtime -at- gmail.

In response to Dan, I think it's very interesting that L&J seem to think that this work of fiction can function as real life proof that their beliefs are true. As though writing it has made it fact.

[Reileen]

I half-thought that maybe the whole reason that LB&J (not to be confused with PB&J) left out the specific details of Rayford's lecturerama to Buck in the previous scene was precisely so that they could make up all sorts of shit about Buck's "conversion" in this scene and not be called on it, but that would be attributing a quality of forethought to the authors' writing craft that I don't believe exists here.

*insert obligatory "long-time lurker, first-time poster" blurb here*

[cjmr]

I've seen people become Christians enthusiastically, read tonnes of the fiction very quickly, and then retroactively engineer for themselves a conversion story that is similar to these scenes.

Worse still, at the Gothard site that Fred linked us too earlier in the week, one of the classes you can take is "How to Write a Four-part Conversion Testimony".

[Cowboy Diva]

"As though writing it has made it fact."
er, it worked for the bible, didn't it?

[Gobear]

If you come 30 years to realize the life that you prided yourself on has been smoke and mirrors fooling yourself and those around you into believing you are important, then where else are you going to go? If Buck made it through that epiphany without imploding, a good start might be to re-evaluate his concept of what makes a person important, which is something the gospel addresses (if not directly, at least by implication).

In contrast to the lazy and unrealistic "conversion" depicted by L&J, Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece Ikiru (To Live) shows the real shock of a man discovering that he's wasted his life. The protagonist (beautifully acted by Takeahi Shimura) is a low-level government functionary who has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer. His impending death sentence meks him shake off his delusions, and he realizes that his family despises him, that he is friendless, and that he has lost 30 years working in a meaningless job. He descends into utter despair, and then finds redemption in accomplishing one noble task, that of turning a piece of wasteland in a slum into a playground.

Kurosawa, although not a Christian, understood human psychology far better than L&J do. Their portrayal of Buck's "conversion" shows a man being handed the solution to a puzzle : "Ah," Buck realizes, "THAT's why the Russo-Ethiopian bombing of Israel failed and why the children disappeared. It's all part of a divine plan." At no time do we see Buck in despair over his fallen condition. Unlike Buck, the protagonist in Ikiru knows that he is utterly lost and without hope and that he needs to be redeemed.

This is one of the reasons that I often feel antipathy for Christians, that so many of them exhibit the arrogance of saying "we're all right; it's YOU lot that need to get on your knees before us and repent."

[Jos]

In response to Dan, I think it's very interesting that L&J seem to think that this work of fiction can function as real life proof that their beliefs are true. As though writing it has made it fact.

Well... lots of people do think like this about certain books. For example, almost every holy text ever written.

[Robb]

Ned Flanders is apparently the epitome of True Christian living.

Sweet! I've managed, over the years, to work the term "diddly" into my daily speech, so I should be set as far as salvation goes!

*****

Fred's not one to pull a deus ex machina

But if he did, does that mean that appearances by our most excellent host in the comments should be taken as contrived & cliche?

*****

I'm opposed to any attempt at a conversion scene, simply because I believe such religious paradigm shifts are (with few exceptions) not something that happen instantly, or even in particular moments, but gradually, or in stuttering moments at best. Does anyone make any kind of judgement like this without considering for a long time? Despite L&J's belief that they've characterized Buck's gradual steps toward belief in their pseudo-Gospel, they're clearly trying to show him making the bulk of his choice here. As Fred has pointed out, and we all agree, that's just bullshit.

I had a thought though, and I'm curious: has there ever been anyone to defend these books (& their methologies) even after reading Fred's words? Has there ever been a "Y'all are mockin' some Godly men, Jesus strike 'em day-ed" type comments?

[Keith]

...if you scratch his cosmopolitan veneer hard enough he is some kind of Christian and does indeed believe deep down that we are all unrighteous, damned sinners who need Jesus.

It's this attitude (held by Fred or not) that drives me up the wall and forms the major area of contention I have with Christians of the vocal and evangelical flavor.

As an atheist, I've made a rational decision about how and why I live my life and it doesn't involve savior myths and self loathing. While I'll freely admit that we all make our mistakes and have our moments of greed and envy, most people do not actively pursue lifestyles or activities that harm others or deprive them of their freedoms or joys. We may take that extra cookie, to borrow an example form upthread, but that is nowhere near the level of depravity and depredation involved in murder, rape or genocide, which any atheist, no matter how New or Radical will admit is an evil the world can and should fight. To throw all us mild law breakers into the same mental cell with rapists and child molesters is absurd.

No one-- not some babbling first century street preacher or his ornery dad-- are going to stop my cookie thievery, white lieing or petty anxieties. Nor should they. If the creator of the universe existed, I'd hope he would be a tad more concerned about Darfur then weather I ate all my vegetables like I said I did. That theologians for centuries do back flips in logic to try and prove He is such a moral micro manager just underscores the Atheist position that organized religion is a tool of oppression and any good that has resulted form it is a bug, not a feature.

[Dylan]

I've seen people become Christians enthusiastically, read tonnes of the fiction very quickly, and then retroactively engineer for themselves a conversion story that is similar to these scenes.

I think you can also have the opposite effect. When I was suddenly introduced to the concept of writing a "testimony" about getting "saved" (not through books, but at a church I used to attend), it triggered a lot of self-doubt. I got the feeling that if I couldn't pick out a pivotal event where I "became a Christian" (complete with date and time), then there was something wrong with my faith, and if anyone found out I'd never hear the end of it. (Admittedly, I'm kind of paranoid, so who knows what would have happened.)

For a time after that, my spiritual life consisted of trying to figure out how to have an emotional religious experience I could be sure of, rather than trying to grow spiritually. Eventually I figured out that walk-the-aisle/say-the-magic-words wasn't the only approach to Christianity out there.

[kodiak]

"That theologians for centuries do back flips in logic to try and prove He is such a moral micro manager just underscores the Atheist position that organized religion is a tool of oppression and any good that has resulted form it is a bug, not a feature."

While getting into an aetheism v. organized religion discussion is getting pretty far afield of the original post, I think that the x-ian answer to that (of the non-fundie variety) is that you're mistaking the tribalism that inevitably takes over any social group with the religion itself. see for example the splits in online atheist communities between "hard" and "soft" atheism, and project that up to a community that is a majority and not a minority.

But as I said, that argument is pretty far afield of the GIRAT et. al.

[Reverend Ref]

Thus we get the following Standard Christian Fiction Conversion Scene.

Just a technical point here . . . Since we're talking about LB and LaJenkins' view on everything which, I am positive, includes the view that the KJV is the One True Bible, shouldn't the above be the Authorized Christian Fiction Conversion Scene?

Robb: has there ever been anyone to defend these books (& their methologies) even after reading Fred's words? Has there ever been a "Y'all are mockin' some Godly men, Jesus strike 'em day-ed" type comments?

I seem to remember one person awhile back who thought this whole exercise was disingenuous (at best); but I don't remember exactly when that was, I'm too lazy to go look for it, and he hasn't been back.