Todd Suomela's Library tagged fundamentalism →  View Popular, Search in Google

Sweaty, rumpled earnestness, in the authors' minds, seems to be able to magically transform even this into a gripping, unforgettable sermon. What's that bit of nonsense about "no mention of an arrow"? And how on earth do you get from "a conqueror bent on conquest" to a mere diplomat? And doesn't Bruce notice that he has the crown before he rides out? And ...

None of that matters -- just look at how sincere and passionate Bruce is. See that exclamation point after the word "important"? That means it's important! Bruce is saying important(!) things and he's saying them passionately and sincerely.

Clear as mud, that, but that's Daniel for you.

The first six chapters of Daniel are fairly straightforward stories of Israel in exile. The final six chapters are a hallucinogenic stew of visions, numerology and wrath. That description of the second half of Daniel might also work as a description of much of Revelation, so it's not altogether unreasonable for Bruce to decide that there's some connection between the two apocalyptic nightmares, but why here? Why jump to this passage in Daniel from that passage in Revelation? What's the justification or logic or excuse?

In discussing those I have been describing as members of the Cult of Offendedness and addicts of a counterfeit moral superiority, I do not want to presume that they are acting in bad faith.

They are acting in bad faith, but that's not my presumption, it's my conclusion. I am not attributing malice to them, but rather, having observed and studied their attributes, I am noting that those attributes include a vast reservoir of transparent, naked malice. Pretending not to see that wouldn't be charitable, it would merely be dishonest.

I recently finished Frank Schaeffer's memoir Crazy for God which recounts, among many other things, his impression of the leaders of the religious right -- people who have chosen as their profession the taking of offense and the propagation of umbrage. Schaeffer describes such people as acting in bad faith, motivated by malice and a disingenuous desire for power. Here is a taste of his description of them:

There were three kinds of evangelical leaders. The dumb or idealistic ones who really believed. The out-and-out charlatans. And the smart ones who still believed -- sort of -- but knew that the evangelical world was shit, but who couldn't figure out any way to earn as good a living anywhere else. I was turning into one of those, having started out in the idealistic category.

This sermon is also irresponsible. Pastors, evangelists and youth ministers stand up and explain that they spend all day, every day at their jobs talking about God, so there's no excuse for teachers, lawyers, doctors or airline pilots not to do the same. This confusion about vocations and obligations tends to create the confusing sense that only full-time professional pastors, evangelists or youth ministers are truly legitimate and obedient believers. This is particularly a problem in evangelical church youth groups, which tend to foster the impression that the only authentic form of Christian discipleship is to be a youth pastor.

The main result of this sermon is not a congregation inspired to spread the gospel, but rather a congregation haunted by inescapable guilt. First there's the external guilt served up by the sermon itself -- the grievous burden of having to be always, relentlessly, making the same sales pitch to everyone you meet. Then there's the deeper, internal guilt that arises from the sense that reducing all relationships to marketing opportunities and treating other humans as nothing more than potential customers is, itself, some kind of sin. The pitiable believers on the receiving end of this sermon thus come to believe that they are, literally, damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Earl's being tactful, but obviously this is a warning and a reprimand. That's the point. Like so much of Tribulation Force, this scene has nothing to do with the post-Rapture world of the apocalypse. It's intended as a lesson in how the authors believe real, true Christians ought to be living now and Rayford here is the model for that lesson.

Rayford, we're being told, has become so outspoken and aggressive in evangelizing everyone he works with that his boss has had to warn him about it. If your boss hasn't yet taken you aside for a reprimand, then you're not living up to the standard. That's the gist of the lesson here. Like Rayford, you should "back off" when someone complains, but you must never back off unless or until someone complains.