L.B.: The Pope of Mount Prospect

Left Behind, pp. 421

After the Steeles meet with the Rev. Bruce Barnes, it's Buck Williams' turn:

Two hours after the Steeles had left, Buck Williams parked his rental car in front of New Hope Village Church in Mount Prospect, Illinois.

The real Mount Prospect is home to more than a dozen churches. I can't help but wonder if they also exist in the fictional world of Left Behind and, if so, what's going on at their buildings while Bruce stays up late at New Hope trying to design a cool logo for the Tribulation Force.

Were the parishioners or members or attendees of those other churches -- the Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians and Catholics -- among the disappeared? If so, have they also, like New Hope, begun to gather small cadres of those who realize what happened and what they missed?

The gist of LB thus far suggests that all of those mainline Protestants and Catholics would not make the cut come Rapture time. They might call themselves Christians, but they're not Real True Christians according to Tim LaHaye's idea of God's standards (which is to say, Tim LaHaye's standards -- he seems to think that on the day of judgment God will hire him as a consultant to separate the wheat from the tares). But even so, non-RTCs still have children. Or had children. The disintegration of every single child of every single family at all of those churches would lead to crowded sanctuaries filled with grieving, traumatized parents seeking answers.

Pastors like the now-departed Vernon Billings tend to stick to themselves. They don't associate or cooperate much with other clergy in their communities. They don't get involved with ministerial councils or interdenominational efforts. The stated reason for this is usually that light should have no fellowship with darkness, by which they mean that they would consider it a sin to associate with people like that liberal Methodist pastor who got arrested at that protest last year, or that woman from the Episcopal church who calls herself a priest, or that "welcoming and affirming" [epithet] from the local UCC church who wears a rainbow prayer stole.

Plus when the rabbi shows up at those interfaith meetings, they ask you not to mention Jesus when you pray, and you know the spell doesn't work if you don't say "in Jesus name."

Working with other churches is perilously ecumenical. Ecumenism -- cooperation among disparate Christian churches in recognition of our underlying unity -- is not considered a Good Thing by people like Billings, or Lahaye and Jenkins. Even the most harmless-seeming forms of cooperation, such as taking turns providing shelter through a local interfaith hospitality network or some such, are too dangerous. It's a slippery slope from there to syncretism, the collapse of absolute standards, moral relativism, one world religion, One World Government, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together ... mass hysteria.

The Ghostbusters quote at the end there is hyperbole. The rest of that isn't. This is exactly what they believe. What they will tell you they believe. What they teach. Left Behind teaches this explicitly. Readers are intended to see the slippery slope between a metropolitan ministerial council and Carpathia's "Enigma Babylon One World Faith." This is meant as a warning.

This objection to interdenominational and interfaith cooperation was much-discussed in evangelical circles following 9/11. The scale and impact of that tragedy was such that a few RTC pastors for once set aside that objection, participating in some of the various memorial vigils and prayer services. That participation was a source of "controversy" and recrimination for months afterward. (That same kind of controversy never seems to follow, however, when the interfaith activity in question is a vigil for Terri Schiavo or an anti-abortion rally. That's interesting.)

The willingness to interact or associate with clergy from other denominations or faiths used to be one of the markers for differentiating between fundamentalists and evangelicals. Evangelicals rallied behind Billy Graham as he effectively worked with local churches from every denomination (even papists!) to help coordinate his mass-evangelism "crusades." Graham's mega-church heirs -- people like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren -- have taken a similar approach. I may not like everything Warren says, but I appreciate that he's willing to work with clergy of other denominations and even other faiths. This new generation of leaders, like Graham, insist that such cooperation is possible without compromising one's own identity. Their critics disagree, vehemently. And those critics are no longer found only in the fundamentalist/separatist wings of the subculture.

The fundies' white-knuckled anxiety -- their barely repressed doubts and their fear that their faith may be a house of cards that would crumble if exposed to the wider world -- seems to be spreading to other branches of the evangelical movement. That's the predictable result of adding weird mythologies to one's faith. The fundies convinced themselves that if the world is any older than 10,000 years then Jesus doesn't love them. Thus they have to avoid all exposure to science. Evangelicals are trying to convince themselves that homosexuality is a choice and that the invasion of Iraq was God's Will. Like the fundies, they have welded these ideas to the bearing walls of their faith, so that if they are not true, then nothing is true. They thus find themselves, like the fundies, having to avoid exposure to an awful lot of the real world around them.

There's one other reason that I think people like the Rev. Billings oppose interdenominational cooperation. It has to do with power and influence. Evangelical polity -- the structure of this unstructured, nondenominational movement -- is roughly feudal, like a collection of competing fiefdoms. It's very important to a guy like the Rev. Vernon Billings that he be the biggest fish in the pond. Acknowledging that his is not the only pond, and that it is far from the largest, threatens his sense of authority. Once you recognize the legitimacy, or even the existence, of all those other churches in town then it's much harder to maintain the illusion that you're the Pope of Mount Prospect.

Getting back to those other churches in town, if we accept the world of Left Behind as the authors have sketched it out for us, then we have to assume that most of the adults from those other congregations were not RTCs and so were not among the disappeared. Bruce Barnes was until very recently a faux-Christian himself, but he seems to view the clergy and laity of these other churches as an even more reprobate species of fraud. It thus never occurs to him to speak to them about what he knows or to attempt to recruit them to his cause.

But while it's not surprising that he doesn't reach out to them, it's strange that none of them are reaching out too him. Those other clergy may not believe the premillennial dispensationalist heresies that Billings taught, but they would all be familiar enough with the substance of them to recognize what they were seeing. They would realize by now what was happening -- realize that they, like all the church fathers and theologians they had ever studied, were wrong and that Billings and Hal Lindsay and (especially) Cassandra LaHaye were right. And despite their being overwhelmed with their duties chaplaining the traumatized community, those other clergy would all be getting in touch with Bruce Barnes.

That doesn't happen here. It doesn't happen for the same reason that Bruce has no problem renting a car or driving 20 miles out I-90 to Mount Prospect despite all the chaos and debris that should be but isn't affecting anyone, anywhere in this book a mere 10 days after The Event.

And but so anyway, Buck pulls up to the church:

He had a sense of destiny tinged with fear. Who would this Bruce Barnes be? What would he look like? And would be be able to detect a non-Christian at a glance?

The authors apparently imagine that his is a common question unbelievers have about RTC clergy: Does their non-Christian detection power work at a single glance, or does it require physical contact?

I can't figure out why anyone would ever think this. Nor can I figure out why the authors would think that anyone would ever think this. It's not just wrong, it's bewilderingly wrong.

And anyway why should Buck care? He's not trying to pass himself off as a Christian, so he shouldn't be worrying that Bruce's spiritual gaydar will penetrate his cunning disguise.

Buck sat in the car, his head in his hands. He was too analytical, he knew, to make a rash decision. Even his leaving home years before to pursue an education and become a journalist had been plotted for years. To his family it came like a thunderbolt, but to young Cameron Williams it was a logical next step, a part of his long-range plan.

What family wouldn't be thunderstruck? Buck finishes high school and then astonishes them all by announcing that he's going away to college to pursue a career. It's so utterly unprecedented.

We're constantly being told that Buck is methodical and analytical (always a bad trait in LB), but we never see this. It seems that by "analytical" in this case the authors mean his stubborn refusal to accept the undeniable implications of explicit divine intervention. That actually seems like the opposite of analytical.

We've also seen that not only is Buck capable of making a "rash decision," he has a propensity for it. He flew to England to expose an international conspiracy, but less than 24 hours later he was cutting a deal with them and helping them to cover their tracks. He met Chloe yesterday, fell in love at first sight and impulsively booked the seat next to her on a flight to Chicago.

Again, this could have worked in a different novel where this was an intentional device -- the self-deceived voice of an unreliable narrator rather than the voice of one writer's Mary Sue substitute. But here the chasm between Buck's concept of himself and his actual character and behavior escape not just his notice, but the authors' as well. They don't perceive any such gap, and even if they did they seem to think that their assertions trump the actions they describe. We've never seen Buck think "analytically" and we have seen him, time and again, make rash decisions, but when the authors contradict this -- "He was too analytical ... to make a rash decision" -- that's supposed to settle the matter.

This is Bad Writing, but it's not wholly unrelated to the authors' Bad Theology. The same gap between what they tell and what they show, between asserted character and actual character, can be seen wherever the novel touches on the nature of God. They tell us that the God they believe in is good, just and loving. But the God they show us is a bloodthirsty, capricious, evil monstrosity.

That's partly the result of Bad Writing, too, but more than that it seems to be Bad Writing by Bad People. The character of God in LB is, like Buck and Rayford, another Mary-Sue wish-fulfillment surrogate for the authors. They have recreated God in their own image. And that image isn't pretty.

Comments

[Dash]

". . . because the first verse of Genesis says. . ."

My bad. I meant "the first verse of Genesis 18."

[hapax]

I just don't think that the Deity deals with His responsibilities by doing quite so much drinking as O'Toole always looks like he does.

But that WOULD explain the platypus.

[Praline]

Anyone who criticises the noble platypus will answer to me.

[Tokyo (was Edo)]

A friendly public service announcement:

Should it become necessary or desirable to do so, the ability to Detect Non-Christians can be stopped by three feet of wood or dirt, a foot of stone, an inch of metal or any amount of lead. I'd recommend a lead sheet, since it has the additional advantage of being multipurpose.

Also, since it's a supernatural ability, it won't function in an antimagic zone.

This has been a friendly public service announcement from your local rules lawyer.

(Sorry, late to the show, I know...)

[Jeff]

Reaching down to her from heaven, he held out the onion she'd thrown at the beggar.

Gee, offering her poison to save her from Hell? That doesn't sound like much of a choice!

Anyone who criticises the noble platypus will answer to me.

Considering the poisonous spur (coated in onion juice?) the males have, I don't think they need help, but I'm sure they wouldn't reject it.

Hmmmm... Praline's next novel: Unbilled! [/snark]

[Fraser]

On infinite punishment, I've read that in the Zoroastrian faith, punishment is finite and quite exact: A devil who drips a milliliter more hot oil on you than your sentence requires will be punished severely.

I wouldn't have liked V'Ger regardless of any resemblance to Trelane. Q doesn't bother me simply because deLancie made him so entertaining.

[Mabus]

Regarding the term "fundie"....I use it for myself. (On Buffyforums, I call myself an "evil soulless fundie", in fact.) Number of reasons, but primarily that I've never seen myself as fitting the definition of an "evangelical".

I must admit that I have not had a great deal to say this installment. Why? Well...when RTCs want to tell jokes about people who expect to be the only ones in heaven, my church is the one they use. (And those of us who want to be tolerant usually end up tolerating RTCs first, making the whole exercise self-defeating.)

Anon: I never bought the Christian soul thing: an infinite pool of souls waiting for eternity to be incarnated - only on Earth, then one single short life-span here, finally an infinite number of souls spending eternity in the location determined by that one life-span. Reincarnation makes much more sense: an infinite number of souls making repeated trips to 3 Dimensional Reality to refine themselves spiritually; the Tibetan Book of the Dead explains it better than I can. And there's got to be more than one inhabitable planet in this galaxy with sentient life on it, much less the whole universe.

Maybe it's some other version of the "Christian soul thing" you're thinking of, but I don't know of anyone who believes in an "infinite pool of souls waiting for eternity to be incarnated", except for the LDS (and it's an oversimplification there). Most churches, AFAIK, think that souls come into being when their bodies do (whenever they think that is).

As for reincarnation--I'm not sure how you can learn anything from lives you don't remember, and I find I can't agree with the goal (at least in most versions that I'm aware of). I'm with Edgar Allan Poe on this one--being created for the purpose of merging with God and vanishing again sounds like a pointless waste of time. But then, I love my ego.

[Karen]

Mabus, I've always heard those jokes using Baptists, myself. (You know the one, where the recently deceased soul is getting a tour of heaven, and the first group of people he meets are having a wild party. St. Peter says "those are the Methodists. Following Wesley's instructions, they didn't drink or smoke or gamble or dance on Earth, so they get to party down up here. The next room is filled with sober people reading long boring books of sermons and sitting very quietly. St. Peter says "those are the Catholics and Episcopalians, they got to party on Earth so they have to be sober examples to follow up here. Also, they believe in Purgatory, so we make 'em sit next to the party for a few millenia to remind them of what they're missing. Finally they came to a walkway next to a glass-walled room, filled with people singing. Peter tells the new soul "be quiet, those are the Baptists, and they won't enjoy the place if they think anyone else is here.")

[Dash]

Well...when RTCs want to tell jokes about people who expect to be the only ones in heaven, my church is the one they use.

That's interesting. I've heard lots of RTCs tell jokes about people who expect to be the only ones in heaven, but the church or denomination they use is almost invariably their own.

But YMMV. (In fact, YM obviously does V. Or possibly it's MM that's V-ing. Either way, we seem to have a religious schism here, and one or the other should now go collect some kindling so we can solve the problem in the traditional fashion.)

Of course, now I have the mental image of a lot of RTCs fighting over jokes: "Oh no, ya don't! We're the ones who object to fornication in a standing position because we're afraid it may lead to dancing!"

[Dash]

Well...when RTCs want to tell jokes about people who expect to be the only ones in heaven, my church is the one they use.

That's interesting. I've heard lots of RTCs tell jokes about people who expect to be the only ones in heaven, but the church or denomination they use is almost invariably their own.

But YMMV. (In fact, YM obviously does V. Or possibly it's MM that's V-ing. Either way, we seem to have a religious schism here, and one or the other should now go collect some kindling so we can solve the problem in the traditional fashion.)

Of course, now I have the mental image of a lot of RTCs fighting over jokes: "Oh no, ya don't! We're the ones who object to fornication in a standing position because we're afraid it may lead to dancing!"

[Dash]

Well...when RTCs want to tell jokes about people who expect to be the only ones in heaven, my church is the one they use.

That's interesting. I've heard lots of RTCs tell jokes about people who expect to be the only ones in heaven, but the church or denomination they use is almost invariably their own.

But YMMV. (In fact, YM obviously does V. Or possibly it's MM that's V-ing. Either way, we seem to have a religious schism here, and one or the other should now go collect some kindling so we can solve the problem in the traditional fashion.)

Of course, now I have the mental image of a lot of RTCs fighting over jokes: "Oh no, ya don't! We're the ones who object to fornication in a standing position because we're afraid it may lead to dancing!"

[Dash]

Apologies for the triple post. Not quite sure how it happened, but I think my internet burped. Twice.

[PurpleGirl]

Mabus: ...an infinite pool of souls waiting for eternity to be incarnated - only on Earth, then one single short life-span here, finally an infinite number of souls spending eternity in the location determined by that one life-span.

I heard this in Catholic catechism class in the 1950s. Don't know when or if they stopped telling kids this.

[SKJAM!]

I seem to remember from way back in the story that Buck's family is from a Western state like Montana or Wyoming. They were probably (in LaHaye/Jenkins' minds) expecting him to go to the community college, or at most State U, maybe get a job at the local paper after getting a two-year degree.

[damnedyankee]

Peter tells the new soul "be quiet, those are the Baptists, and they won't enjoy the place if they think anyone else is here."

(After a loud guffaw that causes the cat to look at me quite indignantly) See, as a solitary agnostic I never get to hear these jokes. Thanks for posting this one.

[Mabus]

damnedyankee: (After a loud guffaw that causes the cat to look at me quite indignantly) See, as a solitary agnostic I never get to hear these jokes. Thanks for posting this one.

Seriously? I thought everyone knew those.

Dash, because our account of how one is saved differs from the traditional RTC one (including faith and works, and the latter involving a baptism by immersion as well as good behavior), we have a reputation among RTCs for thinking we're the Only True RTCs. Which is true in some instances but not all. The Churches of Christ are fairly concentrated in the South, so it's quite possible we're not common enough where you live to regularly be the butt of jokes.

PurpleGirl: I heard this in Catholic catechism class in the 1950s. Don't know when or if they stopped telling kids this.

That explains it....I've never heard a Catholic catechism--or any formal catechism, actually. In theory, though not always in practice, all church authority in the Churches of Christ is subject to the final authority of the Bible--so kids usually start with a grounding in traditionally familiar Bible stories that will hold their interest, like Jacob and Esau or Jesus and the wedding at Cana. Such theology as we have comes later and is even, to some extent, considered optional (in the sense that if you can demonstrate your position effectively from Scripture, it's unlikely that anyone will object to you holding it--no matter how heretical most churches would consider it).

[Jesurgislac]

Karen: Mabus, I've always heard those jokes using Baptists, myself.

The first time I heard that joke, it was "Shh!" (and the new soul peeks into the room to see people sitting quietly) "Those are Quakers, and they think no one else is up here." When I first repeated it to a friend who is Catholic, she told me that the Catholics tell it on themselves, too. It's hard to see how it would funny, otherwise.

[Rosina]

It's hard to see how it would funny, otherwise.

It would work if it were the Exclusive Brethren - just as word play.

[Dash]

Mabus: because our account of how one is saved differs from the traditional RTC one (including faith and works, and the latter involving a baptism by immersion as well as good behavior), we have a reputation among RTCs for thinking we're the Only True RTCs. Which is true in some instances but not all. The Churches of Christ are fairly concentrated in the South, so it's quite possible we're not common enough where you live to regularly be the butt of jokes.

Interesting! I didn't know that about CofC. You got a works theology? [makes mental note to go out and collect more kindling later]*

Thanks for the clarification. And you're right: while I drive past the occasional Church of Christ (not, I gather, to be confused with the United Church of Christ, of which we have many), they don't seem to be a big enough presence to be a common butt of jokes. But then, except for the big churches (Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Baptist), most people around where I live who tell religious jokes tend to tell them on their own group.

And, now I think of it, the three Protestant denominations I mentioned above are also those that are more or less stereotypical for a given religious stance--Baptist for the conservative fundamentalist/evangelical, Episcopalian for the liberal, Lutheran for, um, always being mentioned by Garrison Keillor or something. I've heard non-Episcopalians tell Episcopalian jokes, but not non-Methodists tell Methodist jokes.
__________________________
*The kindling, of course, is purely metaphorical. Actually, the way my group lets you know they don't care for your theology is to refuse you access to the offering plate. Seriously. They'll let you have the bread and wine, but they'll pass the offering plate around you. If they want, they can make a big deal of it, so everyone in the service knows, or it can just be done quietly. So, in a kind of reversal of the Soup Nazi, "NO TITHE FROM YOU!"

[Tonio]

I think in that book he provided an answer to how humans can have free will and at the same time God can be omnipotent and loving at the same time.

I haven't read Lewis. How did he define "loving"? I would not define that word as the equivalent of all-benevolent. Also, how did Lewis address God-cased natural disasters that had nothing to do with human free will?

[Tonio]

I never bought the Christian soul thing: an infinite pool of souls waiting for eternity to be incarnated - only on Earth, then one single short life-span here, finally an infinite number of souls spending eternity in the location determined by that one life-span. Reincarnation makes much more sense: an infinite number of souls making repeated trips to 3 Dimensional Reality to refine themselves spiritually; the Tibetan Book of the Dead explains it better than I can.

I find both explanations strange in the extreme. They seem to be attempts to defend the assumption that souls exist. While I agree that reincarnation has more interior logic, I guess I don't understand why anyone would make the soul assumption in the first place.

[Geds]

With regards to RTC pastor Barnes not cooperating with other churches, I think it's more bad writing than bad theology.

Oddly enough, I read that entry thinking, "Hey, I know exactly what he's talking about."

My old church was the opposite of ecumenical. It's a Bible Church that's kinda somewhere to the liberal side of the fundigelical spectrum's theology (they're not PMD, drinking is fine, at least for the younger parishoners, but they're still right about everything they believe and fit quite well in the Republican Party faithful stereotype).

I go to a Presbyterian Church off and on now, mostly as a Chreaster, but when I first left the old church I thought I'd genuinely give it a shot. One night I ended up going to an ecumenical service at the (gasp) Catholic Church that included Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, UCC, and even the black Baptist church. The Bible Church, Evangelical Free Church, and white Baptists were nowhere to be seen. Moreover, my county has a homeless shelter system wherein the local homeless can stay at a different church every night. I was looking at the list of churches and it had Episcopalian, Catholic, Covenant, Congregational, Methodist, and everything else represented. But no Ev. Free, Bible, or Baptist churches at all. It kinda pissed me off, too. There are plenty of big churches in the area, but the non-denoms tend to have the most space and the most resources. They are interested in charity, but not if it requires them to actually work with other churches.

Could Yahweh have created a people so much alike himself that, if by gaining free will and life eternal, they could become alike Yahweh himself?

Not to blogwhore or anything, but that's the conclusion I drew here...

[practicallyevil]

I heard this in Catholic catechism class in the 1950s. Don't know when or if they stopped telling kids this.

That was before Vatican II, catechism before that was just whatever the person teaching it believed, now it's formalized. Although I don't know exactly the Churches take on the existence of a soul, (aside from it exists, and it has something to do with God).

[bluefrog]

practicallyevil: ". . .catechism before that was just whatever the person teaching it believed, now it's formalized."

Um, no. Before Vatican II Catholics used the Baltimore Catechism from 1941, first edition published in 1885. Before that, there was a catechism published in 1565. Before that, the Catholic history site I was on didn't say. It seems that the teaching of Catholic doctrine has been formalized for quite a while now.

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: While I agree that reincarnation has more interior logic, I guess I don't understand why anyone would make the soul assumption in the first place.

Alive, a person can think and feel and laugh and tell jokes and step to one side to avoid a puddle and hate and love and scream in pain and cry with sentiment and want to die of humiliation and want to live to see a child's face or hear a kind word spoken or eat a decent meal: alive, a human being is a wonderful breathing thinking laughing crying creative animal with a capacity for great good and a capacity for great evil.

Dead, a human being is a hundred to two hundred pounds (give or take) of meat and bone and blood and undigested food and crap, that will start to rot unless it's burned to ashes or frozen or somehow otherwise preserved.

I know that the difference between life and death is biological, not spiritual. But I have no difficulty understanding why we have as an intelligent species always seemed to believe that there is such a thing as a soul.

[Ken]

The Bible's description of god sounds more like the Star Trek episode The Squire of Gothos where the seemingly omnipotent Trelane turns out to be an interdimesional kid using humans as play-toys. "Abraham, kill your son! - Just kidding! - Dude, you were really gonna do it!"

While I agree, I also criticize Roddenberry for repeatedly telling the same story, throughout the original series and later with V'Ger and Q. Done once, the story is a valid allegory about hellfire-and-damnation religion. Done over and over, it's really a reflection of Gene's personal issues, not about religion but about power and authority. -- Tonio

Gene Roddenberry only had two basic plots (especially in his later life/career, when the alcoholism and diabetes took their toll):

Roddenberry Plot #1: We go beyond the edge of the Universe, meet God, and find out God is either (a) malevolent, (b) insane, or (c) both. (Most blatant in the worst of the Trek movies, Star Trek 5.)

Roddenberry Plot #2: "Trancendental Aliens" (i.e. gods in all but name) discover humanity and immediately put us on trial for our life for racism, sexism, environmental sins, etc. Main character argues aggressive defense that persuades the TAs to Let Humanity Live. (Several episodes of both the original and later series, Star Trek 1 (V'ger), Star Trek 4 (Save the Whales), etc...)

For a guy who in his later years was an "Anti-theist" on the level of Madelyn Murray O'Hair, Eugene Wesley Roddenberry sure seemed to have an obsession with the theme of The Last Judgement...

[Ken]

The scene between the Bodhisattva and her ex-husband (till death do us part, which it has) who has so thoroughly X-ed himself as to become only his facade, his public performance for the outside world, struck (and strikes me still) as an extremely valuable lesson in terms of life, not afterlife: sometimes it's time to end a relationship (love affair, friendship, familial connection) because the person you loved at the beginning isn't there any more. -- Bellatrys, re The Great Divorce

Looking back at the past 40 years or so, I wonder if the Baby Boomer generation will have an epitaph that's a variant on The Tragedian's:

Spending their entire life trying to "Find Themselves (TM)", they never had the time to HAVE a Self to find.

This universalist & voluntary vision of Hell is the only one I can tolerate as consonant with a Deity worth worshipping, any more, which makes me a heretic, but oh well. That's the price of obeying one's conscience, as ever. -- Bellatrys

I also heard that idea of Hell when I was going through RCIA; it's implied that it's one of the legitimate Catholic views on the subject. "The gates of Hell are locked from the Inside"; "People in Hell could walk out into Heaven any time they wanted. THEY NEVER WANT TO. BAD AS HELL IS, THEY'RE MORE COMFORTABLE THERE THAN THEY WOULD BE ANYWHERE ELSE. THEY HAVE MADE THEMSELVES TO WHERE THEY COULD ONLY BE "HAPPY" IN HELL."

Remember The Doctor from Hellraiser 2? When he's taken by the Cenobites and turned into one himself? "And to think... I hesitated." He had made himself so twisted that he ENJOYED being a Cenobite in Leviathan's Hell.

[Ken]

Who would this Bruce Barnes be? What would he look like?

"Where, oh where was he?
Where could that man be?"
-- Mel Brooks, The Producers

After meeting a young Robert Redford and the manly-man Rayford Steele, how could anyone measure up? [More gay sub-text! The slash in this book writes itself!] -- Jeff

Well, Jeff, I have no idea why LH&J made it so easy for the Slashies to do their thing Canonically. NOBODY could be THAT clueless. Maybe we're seeing a Freudian look into Jenkins' psyche regarding LaHaye? (Paging Doktor Freud... Paging Doktor Freud...)

I mean, somebody doing fanfic is going to Slash your stuff no matter what.
WHY MAKE IT SO EASY FOR THEM?

[Geds]

I mean, somebody doing fanfic is going to Slash your stuff no matter what.
WHY MAKE IT SO EASY FOR THEM?

Bear in mind, this was written in 1996. By people who are so culturally unaware that they still probably don't know what slash is...

[Bugmaster]

"Blessed is the mind too small for doubt."

"An open mind is like a fortress, with its gates unbarred and unguarded".

When you think about it, the world of Warhammer 40K isn't all that different from our world, as hardcore Evangelical Baptists see it. Chaos is everywhere, waiting for any small chance to seep in and corrupt everything. The central deity is spending all of its lifeforce just keeping it at bay; he/she/it needs all of our help just to stay alive (for varying degrees of "alive"). Other churches, cultures, and societies are not merely strange -- they're evil, demonstrably so, and must be purged by holy flame, or humanity's spark will gutter out and die. There can be no ecumenism im that kind of situation -- not in 40K, and not in our world.

[Rowan Bristol]

I was raised in Mount Prospect. It really wasn't populated with people this stupid. But I was at St Raymond's, so obviously I was one of the ebil catholics...

I have to point out that Roddenberry had nothing to do with Trek V; story, vision, or otherwise; in fact, he repudiated it. One must lay that production at the feet of Shatner. (And I must add, that even the Trek V story makes it clear that the being in question isn't actually God.)

As for Plot 2, humanity has been on trial for its life every single day for a long long time now. The Judgmental Aliens just turn it into a story you can tell in 45 - 120 minutes.

(Hi Rowan! You don't know this screen name, but we've met elsewhere. I'm a big fan of chocolate *wink*)

[MikhailBorg]

Me at 1:00.

[Tonio]

I know that the difference between life and death is biological, not spiritual. But I have no difficulty understanding why we have as an intelligent species always seemed to believe that there is such a thing as a soul.

How does one make the leap from the wonderful human qualities that you listed to the idea of humans having something that outlasts the physical body? If I hadn't heard of the idea of a soul, I may never have thought of it on my own.

[Geds]

I think the church he's describing in the story is supposed to be Willow Creek Community Church - a famous Chicago-area mega-church. It's in the northwest suburbs off I-90, but about another 15-20 miles past Mt. Prospect.

I actually tend to think he's channeling Harvest Bible Chapel here. It's in Rolling Meadows, exactly one town closer to Mount Prospect than South Barrington and James MacDonald seems to have a much closer theology to Tim LaHaye than Bill Hybels ever will.

[Jeff]

Gene Roddenberry only had two basic plots

Let's not forget the computers too stupid to recognize paradox; there were, IIRC, at least 3.

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: How does one make the leap from the wonderful human qualities that you listed to the idea of humans having something that outlasts the physical body?

Oh. Belief in an immortal soul is a shade different from belief in a soul. One can believe in a soul that dies when the body dies, or at least when the body rots: see the ancient Egyptian belief that preservation of the corpse was essential to preserve the soul.

[Nina]

"Peter tells the new soul 'be quiet, those are the Baptists, and they won't enjoy the place if they think anyone else is here.'"

When I first heard that joke, it was Mormons who didn't think anyone else was there. I suspect it's a reflection of where I grew up - in the Southwest, there are quite a few Mormons, but fewer Baptists and Fundamentalists/Evangelicals. At least, there are once you get out of Texas.

[JayDeeJaye]

Let's not forget the computers too stupid to recognize paradox; there were, IIRC, at least 3.

Ha-ha! Yeah, and it wasn't until V-ger they found one smart enough to see through it. But, it took something with a brain the size of plant...

[JayDeeJaye]

Uh, I meant "planet"....

[Ursula L]

I mean, somebody doing fanfic is going to Slash your stuff no matter what.
WHY MAKE IT SO EASY FOR THEM?

Well, it's the same reason why slash was invented in the first place - if you tell a story with no interesting female characters, people looking for character interest will wind up slashing two male characters.

And since L&J are theologically incapable of imagining that there could be an interesting female character, there's nothing left but to write slash-fodder.

Chloe is boring, and we all like meta-Chloe too much to pair her off with any of their male leads.

***

I also find it strange that there would be so much emphasis on the private meetings with the pastor, in terms of people joining the church. What happened to inviting someone to a Sunday service, and then introducing them around during coffee hour?

Of course, I've been trying lately to explain to a wants-to-be-ex-Catholic friend that if she's congregation shopping, she really does need to at least have a quick cup of tea and a couple of cookies after the service. A good coffee hour tells you more about a church than all their statements of theology.

[Vermic]

I actually tend to think he's channeling Harvest Bible Chapel here. It's in Rolling Meadows, exactly one town closer to Mount Prospect than South Barrington and James MacDonald seems to have a much closer theology to Tim LaHaye than Bill Hybels ever will.

I remember when that building used to be a Levitz furniture showroom. Few things are duller to a child than furniture shopping, so I have a deep-seated aversion to the structure which goes way back -- even without knowing what may go on inside it.

Gene Roddenberry only had two basic plots...

True story: some years back, when TNG was still on the air, one of my coworkers stopped by and told me she watched a Trek show for the very first time last evening. I wasn't a regular viewer, but I made a cynical comment: "Wait, let me guess: the crew encountered a being of pure energy that tried to take over the ship."

Her eyes went wide. "That's right! How'd you know?"

[damnedyankee]

Another Roddenberry plot: The Symbolic Aliens. That is to say, aliens that embody one flaw in human nature (racism, apathy, what have you), and it's up to the (relatively) "perfected" humans of the Enterprise to slap it out of 'em.

Y'know, if they actually scrupulously followed the Prime Directive on those shows, they would have been damn dull...

[Tonio]

As for Plot 2, humanity has been on trial for its life every single day for a long long time now. The Judgmental Aliens just turn it into a story you can tell in 45 - 120 minutes.

The pilot for Next Generation used the same theme. The issue is not the theme itself, but Roddenberry's repeated flogging of the theme. At times he seemed to be using the Judgmental Aliens as straw men to extol humanity's wonderfulness, but at other times he didn't seem to believe in the human perfectibility that he preached.

[Geds]

Y'know, if they actually scrupulously followed the Prime Directive on those shows, they would have been damn dull...

I think the Prime Directive was invented specifically so that there'd be something interesting to say in the preview for the next episode.

"Next week on Star Trek the Enterprise encounters an alien civilizationon the verge of destruction at the hands of rampant militarism/space pirates/fluffy bunnies. The crew is forced to choose between helping them and the Prime Directive. What will happen? Tune in to find out!"

The first quarter of the episode is hand wringing over the Prime Directive, which seems to have a Ten Commandments-like hold over the people (it's only invoked when convenient and quietly ignored/vocally damned the rest of the time). The next quarter involves beaming one of the primitive people locked in a random similacrum of human society from before 1900 up to the ship and turning that person in to an ambassador to the conveniently centralized and tiny planetary population. The third quarter is the newly-minted ambassador telling everyone of the wonderful space-ships and star-men who will help. Then it ends with the last people being transported away as the sun explodes or whatever and the ship goes to Warp 9 just in time to escape.

[Tonio]

Belief in an immortal soul is a shade different from belief in a soul. One can believe in a soul that dies when the body dies, or at least when the body rots: see the ancient Egyptian belief that preservation of the corpse was essential to preserve the soul.

Are there modern religions and modern believers who believe in non-immortal souls? If so, I've never encountered any or heard of any. The only other soul concept I know is the metaphorical one, where the word refers to the human consciousness.

[Bugmaster]

...an alien civilizationon the verge of destruction at the hands of rampant militarism/space pirates/fluffy bunnies...

"Spreading happiness... joy... and MORE BUNNIES throughout the land."

[MikhailBorg]

Humanity's long-term survival in the face of a universe which isn't here to help is one of the main science-fiction concerns. It was certainly good enough for Straczynski and Whedon.

One of Trek's biggest problems, of course. is that we're at over 700 televised and filmed storylines (a few of which, believe it or not, were not written or even vetted by Roddenberry) and counting. At this point, you're just ringing in changes on plots that someone, somewhere, has already told.

[Geds]

Humanity's long-term survival in the face of a universe which isn't here to help is one of the main science-fiction concerns. It was certainly good enough for Straczynski and Whedon.

Um, it's slightly harder to do this with Whedon, but in JMS's space opera the aliens weren't one-dimensional and telling serial as opposed to episodic stories allowed it to be something other than "energy beings take over the ship, oh noes!" every week. For that matter, Deep Space Nine was probably the best of the Treks precisely because there was an overall story arc and the aliens got to be developed characters, as opposed to one-note weekly plot advancers. But, from what I can tell, DS9 is the least-liked of the Star Treks that don't involve Scott Bakula.

Whedon, meanwhile, didn't have aliens, and in what little there was of Firefly there was only a taste of overarching plot v. episodic nature, but it was obvious he was working up to something. Meanwhile, the whole Wild West Punk aesthetic of the entire thing was a hell of a lot more interesting when writing characters and plotting than Star Trek. It's hard to come up with compelling, varied storylines for professionals with an entire star Federation backing them up and one of the most powerful ships in the galaxy taking them from place to place. When you have a bunch of independent, less-than-legal regular folk running around and trying to survive the stories can go anywhere.

[Jeff Weskamp]

"One can believe in a soul that dies when the body dies, or at least when the body rots: see the ancient Egyptian belief that preservation of the corpse was essential to preserve the soul." -- Jesurgislac

The Roman Epicurean philosopher Lucretius also believed that souls died with their bodies. But he didn't think there was any way to preserve it after death at all.