Signs of the Apocalypse #2: What’s an apocalypse for?

Image is “The Unveiling” by Peter Kaminski on Flickr [CC BY 2.0]. I have no idea what’s under there]

Apocalypse literally means “to unveil.”  It’s the opening word of the Book of Revelation, a revealing.  The writer lifts the veil from the world we see to reveal things as they really are. 

Being killed is not the worst thing that can happen to you in Revelation.  The worst is being seduced, giving ourselves over to forces that will destroy us.  Power is seductive in Revelation.  I can think of no other biblical book that deals with the toxicity of power like Revelation.  The seduction in Revelation is to confuse power with truth, worthiness, or righteousness.

You’ve probably heard the quote, “If you really want to test a man’s character, give him power.”  You’ve probably also heard, “Adversity doesn’t build character, it reveals it.” 

Apocalypse means “to unveil.”  We’ve had a lot revealed lately. 

We’ve had pastors reveal their willingness to compromise principle to be near power.  They’ve replaced loyalty to principles with loyalty to a president.

Our Supreme Court confirmation process has revealed a Senate majority leader willing to make his own rules for partisan advantage.  Because who’s going to stop him? 

The pandemic has revealed how politicians will pressure public health officials, compromising science to benefit the politics.

The president has revealed his unworthiness for the office in his expectation that the government will serve his personal interests, rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.

We’ve seen a revelation about ourselves as a people.  The problem with the president is not his incompetence, his racism, or his lies.  There are incompetent racist liars everywhere.  The problem is that people vote for him.  People uncritically accept his words and interpret his wealth as a sign of his worthiness and credibility.  He’ll protect them from their shared enemies.  People have been seduced.  Seduced into believing that if you have power, you don’t need law.  Seduced into believing that wealth and the power that comes with it are signs of righteousness.

Apocalypse means “to unveil.”  This is an apocalyptic moment not because of what’s being destroyed, but because of what we’re learning. We haven’t made the progress we thought we had against racism, sexism, or any other ism.

– Our Constitutional government isn’t a set of rules, it is a discipline that must be practiced by the governing and the governed.  It’s only as good as our willingness to live by it.
– People will trade uncomfortable facts for great-sounding lies.
– We are looking for permission to give in to our dark sides and we will enable those who grant it.

I am on the record as opposing comparing people to Hitler and the Nazis.  What I really oppose making those comparisons as a first resort, reflexively, without thinking.  I have been thinking and I want to bring up the Nazis.  Work with me. I grew up hearing that Hitler was an evil genius who bent Germany to his will through brilliant oratory and sinister propaganda.  He repeated his lies often enough that people were programmed into believing them.  Hitler supposedly carried out an evil plan on an innocent population.

I think that’s garbage.  I think Hitler told people what they wanted to hear.  I don’t think he was brilliant, just a slick salesman, giving people permission give in to their dark sides.  People believed his lies because they wanted to.  They believed it all the way into a world war that destroyed the country.

Apocalypse means “to unveil.”  The point of revealing is to recognize and resist the seduction of power.  The people in Revelation 13 marvel at the beast and worship it.  But the beast and its followers are destined for a lake of fire.  The kind of power the beast represents does not come from God and is destined for destruction.  Yet we continue to see that kind of power as worthy, virtuous, even godly.  The most important revelation in Revelation is our capacity to give ourselves over to what will destroy us.

These are apocalyptic times.  See what the times reveal.  That’s my take.  In 666 words.

Random Thursday for October 1, 2020

Image is “Stop Shouting from the Sidewalk” by Torbakhopper on Flickr. [CC-BY-ND 2.0]. Nice shoes.

Unrelated comments, in no particular order.

There’s been a lot said about the presidential “debate.”  Let me add two things:
– Joe Biden said he could handle a bully.  Apparently he can’t. 
– Trump sounded like his debate prep came from the crowd at a MAGA rally.

Here’s something that might help Joe next time, from The Atlantic, How to Win a Debate with a Bully

A tweet from a seminary friend, from 2017

Try to stay sane.

Signs of the Apocalypse #1: What if Jeffress was right?

[Image is “The antichrist drives a BMW” by gus bus on Flickr [CC BY-SA 2.0]. I thought he’d drive something sportier.]

So many comparisons between 2020 and the apocalypse. And maybe they’re right. Look at what’s happened:

  • A world-wide pestilence, disrupting the everything we consider normal parts of life.
  • So much of the west coast is on fire that we see the smoke on the east coast.
  • Hurricanes causing flooding along the Gulf coast. So many of them we’ve used up the English alphabet and we’re into the Greek. There is no plan for what happens if we use up the Greek alphabet.
  • Upheavals and divisions in politics like never before, politicians grooming their followers with falsehoods, and the two sides can’t agree on what facts are.
  • And all of this is hitting us at the same time.

I think Robert Jeffress, one of the president’s go-to pastors, may have been right in his 2014 book Perfect Ending, that president Barak Obama was preparing the country for the Antichrist.  In an interview for the National Catholic Reporter, Jeffress didn’t call Obama the Antichrist, “But what I am saying is this: the course he is choosing to lead our nation is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist.”  Maybe Jeffress was right.  Maybe that’s what happened.

I heard John Hagee, a San Antonio pastor, explain how all this will come about.  He said things would get so bad that we’d turn everything over to a dictator – the Antichrist, quite literally an agent of Satan, who would seem to set things right, but in fact would be paving the way for the worst time in human history – The Great Tribulation.  Jeffress makes a similar statement in the interview quoted above, “‘. . . Americans are willingly giving up their freedom for what they’re told is a greater good,’ he said. ‘A future world dictator will assume power under the guise of the greater good of the world.’”

It’s clear that Jeffress and those like him thought that Obama had done terrible things as president, things like allowing same-sex marriage and the passage of Obamacare.  We were headed to socialism in a handcar.  Then along comes Mr. Donald “I alone can fix it” Trump.  He’s the one who will save us from socialism, from foreign hordes streaming across the border illegally, from the gun grabbers, the baby-killers, and anyone else out there to take what’s ours.  We can say a lot about appointing judges and Supreme Court justices, a lot about banning abortion, and a lot about tax policy, but we are going through a time of major societal change and there are people who are afraid their world will be swept away by it.  Literally afraid.  For them, the upcoming election is literally about their survival.  They’ll tolerate a lot of constitutionally and morally sketchy things from someone who will save their lives.  Things are bad and we now have a leader, a chosen one, doing a lot of sketchy things in the name of making the country great again. A deliverer.  Do you see the pattern?

Are Hagee and Jeffress players in their own scenario?  Are they enabling the thing they warned us about?  The most ironic outcome is often the most likely.  Much of what they say about antichrist comes from Revelation 13, but there is a less-popular figure there, too.  It’s often called the False Prophet and it forces everyone to worship the Antichrist.  I’m not calling anyone any names, but if Trump fits the antichrist pattern, then we should look for a false prophet.  It’s there in Revelation.

I wonder why a movement that teaches us that Satan’s agent will work through politics has been so careless with its loyalties.  In referring to antichrist, the letter of 1 John tells us to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).  Don’t be too eager to follow what feels good, what confirms your prejudices, what makes you feel safe.  In Revelation, it’s the seductive things that lead us to our doom.  So that’s my take.  In 666 words.

Everyone will be the antichrist for 15 minutes

antichrist history and destiny

Everyone will be the antichrist for 15 minutes.

A prominent feature of American evangelicalism is a theology called dispensationalism.  It was popularized by the Left Behind series and has become What the Bible Says when interpreting Revelation.  The antichrist is the beast described in Revelation 13:1-10, Satan incarnate, a ruler who will turn the world into a living hell before Christ returns to defeat him.

Nearly every pope, American president, and Russian (or Soviet) leader has been called the antichrist at least once.  Barak Obama got a lot of that.  Robert Jeffress, the senior pastor of Dallas’s First Baptist Church,  was careful not to say that Obama was the antichrist, but that he would pave the way for him, saying, “The course he is choosing to lead our nation is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist.” I heard another preacher give the standard dispensationalist script on the antichrist.  He said things are going to get so bad that we’ll turn over all our freedom to a dictator – the antichrist, Satan incarnate.

I don’t buy into this, but I could make a case we’re following that preacher’s timeline right now. Our current president said he’s inherited a mess and he’s the only one who can fix it. His followers seem to agree, or don’t disagree enough to speak up. He’s frustrated with the limits of presidential power. The narrative seems to fit that TV preacher’s scenario, but that preacher doesn’t think the president is the antichrist because they have the same politics. Jeffress has moved from a president paving the way to antichrist to a president as an instrument of God. He assumes everyone else will enable the antichrist, but not him. I’m not suggesting anyone is the antichrist. I am asking why a movement that preaches how Satan will emerge by way of politics is so careless with its loyalties.

We now have permission to give in to our worst selves. The president supported violence at his campaign rallies. The alt-right (and many others) interprets his weak condemnation of Charlottesville as support.  We’re free to demonize immigrants.  One of the core truths of the Christian faith is to recognize how we are our own worst enemies, how we oppose what is best for us.  The very people who should be reminding us of that are embracing it.

Maybe this is Jeffress’s 15 minutes. Not as the antichrist, but as another figure from Revelation 13, the one dispensationalists call the false prophet. According to the scenario, he’s the one who persuades us to worship the antichrist. To be clear, I don’t accept the dispensational scenario. But they do. And the way things are going, they seem to fit their own scenarios very well.

(Image is “Antichrist:  History and Destiny” by “Michael Coghlan” on FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.  I didn’t go inside.)

Random Thursday for August 17, 2017

Some random postings about Charlottesville.  Well, they’re not so random, they’re things I agree with.  These two are shared with permission of the authors.

francis.trey.west

jwilson2

I’ve been curious about what the president’s evangelical advisory council has been saying about this.  Here are two conflicting articles.

Graphics Sandbox - letter size portrait

False Prophets in the White House – https://sojo.net/articles/false-prophets-white-house

AND

Trump’s Faith Advisers Condemn White Supremacy – http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/13/politics/trump-evangelical-board-white-supremacists/index.html

Random Thursday for June 15, 2017

Unrelated comments in no particular order

boom

Montana Congressman Greg Gianforte body slammed a reporter during his campaign.  He’s since apologized.  This is the best commentary about the comments on that event.  It’s called “Face it:  The body-slammed reporter did just what you would have done” by Felix Biederman.

The Texas Legislature comes back for a special session on July 18th.  The agenda includes the Texas Bathroom Bill.  Supporters tell me its purpose is to protect women from men posing as women.  Am I supposed to believe that when a man dresses as a woman, hides out in the women’s room, and sexually assaults a woman, he has not violated any law?

Has anyone played this game:  Two Rooms and a Boom?  Two teams are randomly placed in two rooms.  One team has the President.  The other has a bomb.  The teams swap players between the two rooms in “hostage exchanges.”  At the end of the exchanges, if the President and the bomb are in the same room, the bomb team wins.  If not, the President team wins.

The Kansas legislature overrode Gov. Sam Brownback’s veto of a tax increase bill.  The bill’s purpose was to reverse some disastrous tax cuts.  The tax cuts were supposed to be a “shot of adrenaline to the heart of the Kansas economy.”  Extra money leads to investment, which leads to business expansion, which leads to prosperity.  Except when it doesn’t.  Any discussion I ever had about money for product development or capital improvements always came down to one question:  what’s the rate of return?  It’s nice to have the money in your pocket, but if a company doesn’t think spending money will make money, it won’t spend money.  Handing a company money is no guarantee it will stimulate the economy.  The whole thing sounds vaguely socialistic.

(Image is “BOOM” by “Richard Eriksson” on FlickrCC-2.0.  He’s Canadian.)

Random Thursday for December 10, 2015

Unrelated comments in no particular order.

Jerry Falwell, Jr’s concealed carry comments have been all over Facebook.  I remember when his father, near the end of his life, met with a group of gay Christian men to try to understand their point of view.  I believe Jerry was honestly trying to see things from another point of view.  I don’t think the later Jerry Falwell, Sr. would have approved of his son’s comments.

Everyone on each side thinks the other side’s crazies have taken over.

I have spent a long time on this blog trying to keep people from making comparisons to the Nazis.  Then Trump comes along to test my resolve.  Here is a flowchart that should help, courtesy of College Humor.

nazi flowchart

Trump is a mirror, reflecting our worst selves.  I think minorities don’t like him because they see how he views Muslims and figure he thinks the same about them.

I draft my blog entries in a Moleskine notebook.  I have a hard time passing up a good notebook.  Here are some alternatives to the Moleskine.  I’ve used the Mod notebook and liked it.  Check them out at http://gearpatrol.com/2014/04/09/margin-call-5-moleskine-alternatives-for-the-notetaker/.

best-moleskine-alternative-notebooks-gear-patrol-lead-full

Apparently not just talking to Donald Trump

By now everyone has jumped on Donald Trump’s remarks, but I want to add to a comment I made on my last Random Thursday post, based on a Facebook comment.  I wrote this:

“It used to be that saying “I’m not politically correct” was a way to try to communicate an uncomfortable truth.  Now it’s a lame excuse to give in to your dark side.  I’m talking to you, Donald Trump.”

Here’s why I wrote it:

During the Fox News presidential candidate debate, Megyn Kelly brought up the names Donald Trump has called women he didn’t like and asked him if that was the right presidential temperament (here’s the video).  Trump’s reply was that he was not “politically correct” and if Megyn Kelly had a problem, she’d have to get over it.  Trump’s problem is not a lack of political correctness, but a lack of common courtesy.  At one time, people who were not politically correct used terms like, for example, “illegal aliens” instead of “undocumented workers,” because they wanted to communicate the uncomfortable truth that these people were violating immigration laws.  Trump wants to broaden the term to allow being rude and crude.  If I call a woman a “slut” and then say, “I’m not politically correct, that’s how I am, so if you don’t like it, it’s your problem,” does that excuse my behavior?  Trump thinks it does.  I think it doesn’t.

I set a low bar for my expectations of Trump’s debate performance and he managed to go under it both in his exchange with Megyn Kelly at the debate and his tweets afterwards.

By the way, here’s something I didn’t make clear at the start.  Random Thursday is a collection of observations and thoughts that do not necessarily go together.  A Facebook comment linked two of the items, which I thought was a very clever observation, but any link I don’t explicitly spell out is unintentional.  Starting and ending with a Trump comment led some to believe this was a post about Trump, but it was not my intention to write a whole post about Trump.  Until now.

campaign in poetry

(Image is “politically correct” by Brett Jordan on Flickr.  CC BY 2.0.)

Six Degrees of Adolf Hitler

There is a meme circulating on Facebook that sends me to the moon.  I hope by the time I’ve finished this, you have the same problem with it I do.  Here’s the meme:

hitler and hilary

I’m not writing this to be pro-Hilary, certainly not to be pro-Hitler.  I’m trying to be pro-truth.

The first question you should be asking is whether or not Hitler said that.  According to Snopes, it is unlikely Hitler or Hilary said the quotes below their pictures.  Snopes gives it a “False”.

That’s inventing “facts”, but that’s not my problem with it.

The meme is yet another example of playing the Hitler card.  The Fallacy Files calls this “reductio ad Hitlerum” or “argumentum ad Nazium”.  One’s opponents are wrong because their ideas are the same as the Nazis.  Or their behavior is the same as the Nazis.  Somehow they are the Nazis reborn and their leader is a new Hitler.  It’s also called Godwin’s Law, “Any internet conversation allowed to continue long enough will be about the Nazis.”  Lewis Black did a great job of explaining this in “Glenn Beck’s Nazi Tourettes”.

  • “It’s like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Except there’s only one degree.  And Kevin Bacon is Hitler.”
  • “Hitler had a mustache. Mother Teresa had a mustache.  Mother Teresa is Hitler.”

That’s absurdly misguided reasoning, but that’s not my problem with it.

The next great point comes from, of all people, Glenn Beck.  You see it in Lewis Black’s video.  How can you compare your particular issue to the Nazi’s systematic extermination of more than six million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and anyone who opposed them?  Do these people really think their “suffering” is in the same category?  I’d invite them to be openly Christian in China or Iraq, maybe it would give them a new perspective.  Jacquielynn Floyd tackles this in “Robert Jeffress gets an F in History”, a column in the Dallas Morning News.

It’s very egocentric, but let me get to my real problem with this.

It has to do with the message of this particular meme.  It says that asking someone to put society’s needs ahead of their own is evil.  The people who defeated Hitler and liberated Europe put society’s needs ahead of their own, some to the point of giving their lives.  We ask our troops to do that today whenever we send them into harm’s way.  We ask our law enforcement officers to do that daily to insure public safety.  On a smaller scale, we are all asked to do that when we are called for jury duty.  You take a day or two out of your life to contribute to our best efforts at administering justice.  We object to paying taxes, but we all understand on some level (some get this better than others) that we have to pay for roads, schools, and firefighter’s salaries.  YES, there are times when evil people for evil reasons call us to put society ahead of the individual.  There’s no denying that.  But not every call is evil and it is dangerous to be drawn into thinking that it is.  It’s also dangerous to let your opposition to Hillary Clinton cause to you throw out the good principles along with the bad.

The name of the blog is The Jabbok Ford, where Jacob wrestled with a stranger (God? an angel?) who blessed him and gave him a new name.  We must wrestle with ideas, too.  It’s never simple or easy, but there is blessing in the end.

Another Church-State Thought

If you read the Constitution, you don’t find the phrase “separation of church and state”, even though we say there’s a provision for separation of church and state in it.  Based on a comment from a previous blog entry, I thought I’d look at the issue.  So I turned to http://www.constitution.org, the official web site of The Constitution Society.  Here’s what I learned.

The phrase “separation of church and state” comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.  They wrote Jefferson wondering why he had not declared national days of fasting and thanksgiving.  (Would anyone really fast if we had a day of fasting?)  Here’s Jefferson’s reply.  I put the key phrase in bold.  You can find this at http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm.

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

The phrases “should make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and “prohibit[ing] the free exercise thereof” come from the First Amendment, which is given here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Jefferson is saying that since Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, there exists a wall of separation between church and state.  It appears that Jefferson is saying the First Amendment builds a wall between church and state.  While it is true that Constitution does not contain the phrase “separation of church and state,” as far as Jefferson was concerned, it contains the concept.