Doomsday

The second half of Glorious Appearing documents the fulfillment of prophesy – “history written in advance” (237).

Members of the Trib Force continuously exclaim over Carpathia’s eternal capacity to reject the prophesy, even as it starts to be fulfilled in front of his eyes. “Carpathia had to have read the Bible. He had to know all this was prophesied. He even had to know the predicted outcome. Yet he brazenly came to the very post he was supposed to, and…he still had the gall to believe he would prevail” (269).

From this and similar statements, it seems as if everything is predestined – who will win, who will lose, who will live, and who will die. When Ming asks Eleazar about people who choose not to come to Israel, he just laughs and replies, “Did you see anyone at the judgment today who appeared to have a choice?” (368).

But at other times throughout Glorious Appearing, the authors emphasize that it is possible to have a choice. By choosing to believe in Jesus, a person will be spared the plagues and ultimately the lake of fire. Conversely, those who choose to believe in the Antichrist get the punishment they deserve. “The Unity Army soldiers were slain simply by the Lord’s words…they had long since made their decision. They had pledged their loyalty to the god of this world, had willingly taken the mark of Antichrist and bowed the knee to him. For them there was no recourse” (239).

It seems to me LaHaye and Jenkins are trying to have it both ways. Do we have free will to choose between good and evil? Or is everything predestined, and are our actions today just fulfilling ancient prophesies?

The questions are more than merely theological. As McAlister notes, “the series offers its readers a way to see the aggressive actions of the United States (and those of terrorists or other actors in the region) as part of a divine plan…beyond any human agency to effect – or to judge.” (McAlister 194). Obviously, it can be a slippery slope from predestination to abdication of responsibility.

A Lecture by Slavoj Zizek. “Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semite and Jew” European Graduate School, 2009

I was thinking about posting this before I read McAlister’s piece.  But now, having read it, I see even more connections to what we’ve been discussing.  The lecture is long, so I’ve only posted the end parts where Zizek summarizes his argument.

The McAlister piece brings together many of the issues we raised last week in class.  I’m glad that we read this after the class because it really crystallized how I understand and think about Left Behind.  There are many things I wanted to discuss in this blog post, but in the interest of brevity, I’ll choose one and leave the rest for class.

She reads the novels as placing importance on the roles of the Jews, specifically as interfaith relations are important in regards to imperialism.  The U.S. has always been imperialistic, this attitude/policy has just been called by another name (e.g.; “making the world safe for democracy.”) Democracy (as opposed to governments based on religious law) is a pursuit of liberalism.  But McAlister says that this sort of  liberalism is also rooted in Christian evangelism in the way that it seeks to convert others to their sect.

In the lecture I posted, Slavoj Zizek makes the claim that liberalism and fundamentalism are a false conflict and that fundamentalism can actually grow out of liberalism.  (I’m not sure if I understood his entire lecture correctly.)  Zizek also talks about a change in anti-Semitism that occurred during pre-Nazi years.  He says that previously anti-Semites sought to eradicate Jewishness, so conversion was an acceptable alternative.  Then, the concept of a Jew changed to an inherent quality so that physical annihilation was something they desired.  During Hitler’s rule, he and Eichmann considered moving all Jews to another homeland to answer the Jewish Question.  Ultimately, the Final Solution resulted in the Holocaust.  Then, Zizek says, with the founding of Israel in 1948, the attitude changed again.  This changed perception of the Jew from nomadic to established in a homeland and fueled hatred against this new type of Jew.  He says that many Middle Eastern countries (he gives Iran for example) allow Jews to live freely in their country, but antagonize Israel.   And, importantly, Zizek says this is responsible for a new type of anti-Semitism, one directed against Israel.

To connect with our topic of interest – Christian evangelist notions about Israel: McAlister notes the omission of any discussion of American Jews and Palestine or Palestinians  from Left Behind.  About the first she writes: “Jews are instrumental when they matter but they do not matter at all unless they make themselves of interest to God by becoming Israelis.”  About the latter: “the notion of Palesinian is made invisivble, impossible…there is no Palestinian problem on the evangelical map.”  That is: the creation of the state of Israel as opposed to Palestine antagonizes the need for the state to exist for the Second Coming.  Further, McAlister connects this with general U.S. Middle East foreign policy, because the U.S. is largely evangelical Christian.

Mcalister begins by painting the Left Behind novels as a strong supporter of US intervention or disruption of Middles Eastern politics. I was not entirely sure if she was indicating that the books incited people to support US military action or simply that the books were another manifestation of a mindset that already existed. Before the reader oversimplifies the role of the novels in our time she encourages us to find what makes the Left Behind series different from its predecessors. To be honest the only series that I can think of similar to Left Behind that infiltrated popular culture is Pilgrim’s Progress. I never actually read either but I remember seeing a film adaptation of both prior to taking this class. To be honest I was really unaware of a religious calling to protect Israeli state at all costs. As I continue to read and learn in this class I feel like an outsider learning all of these things about evangelicals and what they supposedly believe. But back to the issue at hand, is the pro-Israel sentiment in America is largely fueled by Israel’s role in end-time prophecy? Where do the Palestinians go? I do not think this makes any sense and I am angered that she argues that Americans (evangelicals anyhow) are largely invested in this region based upon their role at the end of the world. This has not been my most cohesive blog entry but I am not sure of what to say really. I am annoyed with this group of evangelicals that have completely disregarded the plight of a people who have been displaced in their own country. I am also annoyed at myself for not figuring this out on my own. I do not want to racialize this, but hell it reeks of racism and religious discrimination. I am ashamed really to be associated with America in general but this is another thing that I am able to add to my current list of grievances. Right now I am unable yet again to identify with American evangelicalism despite being Christian and a similar claim to acknowledge the same God because there is a serious disconnect between reality and their reality. I am not able to fully articulate how I feel but it is quite disheartening for the Palestinians and other Israelis to be used simply as a means to an end apocalyptic end.