Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism

4. Apocalyptism

102 In the fall of 2003 I borrowed an audiotape of a novel entitled Left Behind from my local library, thinking it was similar to the other light fiction I often listen to while commuting. What I heard stunned me. While waiting for class to begin one day, I mentioned to some graduate students that I was listening to a frightening narrative involving mass disappearances, earthquakes , firestorms, and the general collapse of civilization. The students recognized the tale immediately. One picked up its thread while others joined in, and they recited the entire narrative of the apocalypse: from the Rapture, when Christians who are saved will be taken bodily into heaven, through the Great Tribulation and on to the Glorious Appearing, when Christ will return to establish his thousand-year reign on earth. I was the only person in the room who had never heard of John of Patmos or read the biblical book of Revelation. Fascinated by the story, and a bit ashamed of my ignorance, I began to study Christian apocalyptism. The percentage of religious believers in America is higher than in any other industrialized country—according to historian Randall Balmer, 94 percent of Americans believe in God (Blessed 2). In another survey, undertaken in 2001, only 16 percent of Americans described themselves as “predominantly secular” (ARIS). Susan Jacoby observes that some among this group must believe in God nonetheless, because in this same poll “less than 4 Apocalyptism APOcAlyPtism 103 1 percent described themselves as atheists or agnostics” (7). Not all who believe in God are Christians, of course, and not all Christians believe in an impending apocalypse. While Catholic doctrine acknowledges the notion of a Second Coming, for instance, Catholic bishops have taken a fairly dim view of the elaborate end-times scenario painted by Left Behind.1 Mainline and liberal Protestants are also less likely to entertain apocalyptism than are evangelicals and fundamentalists.2 Scholars disagree about the definitions of these last two groups. Balmer uses evangelist to refer to conservative Protestants in general (Mine Eyes xii). Christian Smith asserts, on the other hand, that the word evangelical has a substantive content, indicating a commitment to spread the gospel to others by “taking a stand in the world” for religious belief and practice (American 243). And not all evangelicals are fundamentalist by any means. Nancy Ammerman points out that prior to World War II one might use “either name to describe those who preserved and practiced the revivalist heritage of soul winning and maintained a traditional insistence on orthodoxy”; more recently, however, evangelical Christians “saw benefits in learning to get along with outsiders,” while fundamentalists insisted that “getting along was no virtue and that active opposition to liberalism, secularism, and communism was to be pursued” (“North American” 4). Apparently George Marsden is not joking when he defines a fundamentalist as “an evangelical who is mad about something” (Understanding 1). Fundamentalists, according to Marsden, are ordinarily “militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to changes in cultural values or mores, such as those associated with ‘secular humanism’” (Understanding 1). This militancy stems from the distinguishing character of Christian fundamentalism, which is the priority awarded to correct belief: according to William Dinges, “for the fundamentalist, ‘holding right views’ and uniformity of belief is normative for all other elements of religious selfunderstanding ” (82). This priority is instantiated in American Protestant fundamentalism by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which insists that the Bible cannot be mistaken. Ammerman takes inerrancy to be a distinguishing feature of fundamentalism, along with premillennialism—that is, the belief that the Christian faithful will be taken bodily to heaven prior to the tribulation and the end of days (“North American” 6). In other words, Ammerman identifies fundamentalism with apocalyptism. In 1992 Paul Boyer estimated that the circle of core believers in Christian apocalyptism was relatively small. However, he acknowledged that 104 APOcAlyPtism the work of this group influenced more millions of Americans who can be classified as “believers who may be hazy about the details of biblical eschatology, but who nevertheless believe that the Bible provides clues to future events” (2). Since members of this second group do not actually read the Bible, Boyer opines, they may be “susceptible to popularizers who confidently weave Bible passages into highly imaginative end-time scenarios” (3). A third, larger circle includes “superficially secular individuals” who in “times of crisis . . . may listen with more...