FaithFusion offers blogs and columns on
many topics: storytelling, society and culture, philosophy, religion,
politics, science, and especially “deep doctrine magic” about
all seven.
Recent research for a forthcoming freelance project has led to my reading Galileo's Mistake by Canadian author Wade Rowland, a somewhat-controversial 2001 volume that purports to debunk the myth of noble-scientist-Galileo-versus-evil-closed-minded-Church in 1633.
Rowland, who is sympathetic to Christianity and to “religion” taking part in scientific pursuit, offers this on page 46.
There is a famous story that Galileo, during his second year of university, was watching a lamp swinging in the glorious Romanesque cathedral in Pisa one morning. (He was, we are to presume, bored with the cant and ritual of the service.) It suddenly occurred to him that the lamp always required the same amount of time to complete an oscillation, no matter how wide the swing. This insight led him to suggest the pendulum as a regulating mechanism for clocks. Even today, guides at the cathedral make an ancient bronze lamp hanging in the nave a feature of their tours. The story as it is usually told is a thinly veiled allegory highlighting the superiority of the scientific mind. While the rest of the congregation wasted their time in the protocols of religion, Galileo's scientific mind was alert to the truth. He did in fact experiment with the pendulum later in life, and suggested its use in timekeeping (though he was not the first to do so). But unfortunately for the story, the lamp that he is supposed to have been watching as a youth was cast in 1587, by which time his student days had ended.
How about a little shallowness amidst all the attempted substance on this site?
But of course ...
One evening in late October, nothing was on TV. Hundreds of channels, all of them seeming trash, and I must have been bored with Fox News. No Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes were on — I had just seen my first samples of those in that same week. For no explicable reason, I had drifted over to one of those insipid Disney cartoon channels that are populated mostly by absolutely stupid “Power Rangers” repeats and other similar attempts at cheap anime-esque idiocies.
A friendly bundle of some other form of idiocy began playing at 10:30 pm. The musical theme began with clips of a big, blue, outrageously muscled grinning superhero, and a moth-like sidekick, jumping about a city fighting villains, while this weird guy-dominated pumping theme music kept telling me something like, “Dum-dooeeee, da-da-da-dee-DOW!”
This is not my attempt at replicating the music; the guys were actually saying this.
For some reason I kept watching, and remembered seeing the big blue guy on a Life cereal box way back in 1995 and thinking it was dumb. But that made no difference now; back then, I also thought the Muppets were dumb.
The Tick, as he is called, is Mighty, and Nigh-Invulnerable! Those are his powers.
And, of course, his famous battle cry is as follows: “Spooooooonnn!”
His sidekick, Arthur, is an accountant who left that profession in search of adventure; his costume enables him to fly, but often slowly.
This episode, however, called “Evil Sits Down For a Moment,” opened with another hero, Die Fledermaus, admiring himself in his bathroom mirror. (He looks somewhat like Batman.) Arthur calls him on the phone, but Die Fledermaus — who is actually mostly a “hero” in only name and appearance — is worried that Arthur wants him to help combat some actual Evil. Actually, Arthur and The Tick are just picking out some new furniture and they need some help.
In the furniture store, Die Fledermaus meets and falls head-over-heels for a woman with an accent who is dressed in what appears to be a high-school band uniform, with cape. Meanwhile, The Tick suddenly notices that the furniture seems to be moving. It's the Ottoman Empress, the very woman Die Fledermaus was falling for, and not only do she and her furniture army want to take over The City, but she wants to marry Die Fledermaus!
And, with all the subtlety and style of a six-year-old, Die Fledermaus hates that idea. Once the Empress is safely deposed, he warns her sternly, “Don't ever think about trying to — m-marry me again!”
... Anyway, it's actually a hilarious series — bordering on the so-bad-it's-actually-good rationale. Spoofs of the superhero/action genre are plentiful — and the series even has some fun with politically liberal ideas about how to deal with evil, spoiled children and such.
All that to say, The Tick versus Season One DVD set releases today, and though it does not contain the above-described episode, it does include some of the most hilarious. The cover art alone gives one an excellent flavor of the show itself, right down to The Tick's big impervious grin as he gleefully combats Evil in all its many forms — “be it a man-eating cow or Joseph Stalin!”
Another favorite quote of the The Tick's goes as follows: “Evil is bad! And good — isn't!”
His quasi-essay with which he begins the discussion makes some excellent, and very familiar, points about the dichotomy between cultures “Christian” and “secular”:
Christians are attempting to model an entirely seperate culture, (entertainment, media, school material, the works) for themselves, this is of course fine and acceptable but for two tiny little problems.
A: Christians actually do, more or less, reside on planet earth with several billion other people besides them who live in their neighborhoods, visit the same commercial establishments, sit on the same buses, own stock in the same companies, stare luridly at their daughters and even *gasp* use the same drinking fountains. Christians are of course trying to put a stop to all this as soon as possible, but my prediction is that this non-segregated and altogether ungodly environment will continue to exist for some years into the future.
B: Christians are attempting to model their brave new seperatist society after mainstream pop-culture...(only christian)...which is, how shall I say it?...a Collossally stupid idea.
Lets just look at “Christian”(TM) music and movies for an example.
Instead of submitting Christian Music for a decision on the quality of the work at the Grammy Awards, Christian artists came up with the “Dove” awards just for Christian Music, so that the “Christian Quality” of music could be determined, instead of having a bunch of unspeakable little secular people tear down something they obviously wouldn't be able to understand (like music). That would be unthinkable!
Millions of CD's are sold each year exclusively through Christian stores and the Christian sections of regular stores, no matter what Genre the music might be in, it is still sold in the Christian category. Why? Well, because it's christian music, and christian music belongs on the christian market since it obviously wouldn't do well with mainstream audiences, right?
Indeed, correct.
Of course, I've already posted my first thoughts on the topic, of course pulling some material from my own existing columns.
In the official forum of the American Christian Fiction Writers organization, I began typing a response in one thread about someone's Character Introduction. And eventually, as does often happen, found myself writing an impromptu column.
The following is a supplemented version, containing elements I've learned from existing well-written, Widescreen Fiction novels, along with my own experiences with crafting my own novel Initium over a seven-year almost-tribulation.
If one is a Christ-centered novelist with conservative views, one must also keep in perspective the seemingly “liberal” ideal of Grace. This is only of God! — He, through his incredible mercy, actually ignores the original moral rebellion of those He has drawn to Himself!
Yes, the very conservative Law exists, but only to point us toward Himself and His amazing Grace. A writer must maintain a balance, then, between standing for absolute Righteousness and keeping Grace in mind.
Meanwhile, the writer must be careful to keep in mind that even the most heroic of protagonists should have their inward struggles, not just fight against the storyline's villains.
One parallel to this, it seems, is actually superheroes.
I don't mean comic-book characters, with whom I actually have little familiarity. Instead I refer to the recent motion picture incarnations of Spider-Man, Batman and Superman. Their films' writers and directors have ingeniously cast as very human characters, albeit their fantastic abilities and desires to save their whole cities from villainy.
Sam Raimi, Christopher Nolan and Bryan Singer, and their teams of screenplay weavers, know that special effects and saving-the-world storylines only go so far. The superheroes must maintain inward struggles as well.
Thus, Peter Parker dons the garb of Spider-Man and swings between skyscrapers to fight Doc Ock, yet is also struggling to keep up with homework, family responsibilities, and re-win the heart of his true love Mary Jane.
Bruce Wayne is an even more complex character, almost an anti-hero, with resentment against the thug who murdered his parents and the repulsive criminal underworld of Gotham City. And yet, his original thirst for revenge that gradually leads to his development of Batman, also draws him instead to a very moral sense of true justice.
And Superman, the only one of the three who was actually born a hero, can lift artificial islands, walk right up against a firing Gatling gun, and halt the plunge of a wounded airliner, yet in his heart he truly yearns for acceptance from the world and from his love interest, Lois Lane.
All three have not only made simple, surface mistakes here and there, but tremendous lapses of judgment that haunt them the rest of their lives. Peter Parker was indirectly responsible for the death of his uncle. Bruce Wayne struggles with his anger and desires for vengeance; he almost murders a man. Superman, in the “true” film preceding Returns, relinquishes his powers so he can experience temporary, forbidden pleasure, and puts the entire globe in jeopardy.
Though people may claim to have high motivations, moral standards and such, the Bible and the common sense and conscience of most somewhat-honest individuals agree: all people are genuinely corrupt at heart.
And thus, even the “best” of individuals will experience tremendous lapses in moral judgment, and will sometimes fail miserably in conflicts, both inner and outward.
Another example: Let's say a subcreated character is one who likes to debate liberals; one of my characters enjoys the same thing. Well, what would happen if the protagonist actually “loses” a debate — if he more than meets his match in verbal sparring and he is honestly forced to reckon with his entire worldview? With such a subplotline for a well-developed protagonist, a writer has actually just raised the story stakes even higher than fighting a threat to drop thermonuclear weapons on Toronto.
Clearly, novel readers and film viewers can identify with not only outward conflict against the Bad Guys, but the realization that even the protagonists can be Bad Guys at time. Again, only Grace can overcome that — and such is the beauty of Christ-centered, realistic fiction that involves real-life characters, many of whom are either redeemed, or well on their way toward becoming so.
This column had been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your possible viewpoint.
If you haven’t been into a Christian bookstore in a while, take a moment to slip past the little yes,-add-me-to-your-church-mailing-list bulk bulletin cards, giant VeggieTales displays for their recent pop-culture-friendly DVD releases, and wooden Willow Tree figurines shaped like gentle women without faces.
Instead, browse the fiction section for a while. Note the covers — many of them featuring women, often in calico dresses, standing on the prairie, looking forlorn. Then choose from among this “variety” of volumes and note the back cover descriptions.
Or, perhaps I can save you some time here, by utilizing intensive market research and thus hybridizing all of them into a complete summary of summaries, like this:
It’s the year 1878! Sierra Samantha Victoria Hutchinson Dick Cheney O’Regan Begorrah Lancaster is a (select one: frontier doctor/lawyer/U.S. Marshal, daughter of Irish immigrants, abandoned orphan, child of stern Amish upbringing), who is (select one: trying to make her way in a career dominated by men, struggling to understand a new land and find true love, struggling with her own loneliness brought on by the man who left her behind, trying to reconcile her faith and childhood abuses).
Will her faith in God be put to the Ultimate Test?! Maybe!
These and other scintillating questions will be answered herein and also in the forthcoming next eight books in this series, available next month — same Bat-time, same Bat-channel! Same peril! . . .
And so it goes.
I have neither personal irritation with these books, nor for the authors who write them. After all, I’ve never actually read one all the way through. Books like these sell big; from behind the bookstore counters, I’ve seen them fly off the shelves — not literally, of course, but literarily. The very-imitable, yet prolific, Beverly Lewis, Judith Pella, Francine Rivers, seemingly multiple generations of Gilbert Morrises and of course Karen Kingsbury, and all their literary cousins, move major metal in the marketplace.
Readers — invariably, middle-aged and elderly church-intensive women — just can’t get enough of them.
Romance is a particular element of such ultra-similar stories. Even entire series, based on geographical landmarks, promise heartwarming accounts of Love, True Love and Marriage in such exotic locales as Hawaii, San Francisco, Florida, yes, even Kansas and Kentucky. Character names and locations only are changed to protect the innocent.
And innocent they are. As one woman told me, such books provide wholesome alternatives to those steamy romance writings available on the secular shelves. Yet the cleaned-up books are somewhat unrealistic, she added, laughing with me about the “state” of the geographic series’ titles.
“The male characters are always compassionate and Christlike, and seem to know exactly what to say to win the ladies’ hearts,” she admitted with a grin.
Yet she purchases and reads them anyway — as do many of her friends. And within, many rough edges to the sides of this narrow view of life have been safely edited away. It’s far unlike real life, and far apart from what the Creator expects from His redeemed in a world of rebellion and discomfort.
Long before FaithFusion's existence, I was writing weekly columns for a daily paper and studying print journalism ... but even before that, I have spent many years attempting to form a story ... a culture ... a future era of incredible strides for humanity, accompanied by unparalleled conflict between the worldview of God and the Godless ...
This novel is Initium, long complete, newly reforged, and with excerpts and synopses now available at the first FaithFusion subset: Initium.FaithFusion.net.
Go Beyond the Sphere references much more than a launch beyond the orb of Earth into space. It signifies a departure from the usual — a risk-intensive journey toward the unknown realms beyond one's comfort zone.
Might Christendom be ready for such a published project? Perhaps so. Because of the newfound influence of Misters Lewis and Tolkien, and even more daring contemporary efforts, I believe more readers — particularly young, depth-minded, sincerely Christ-following fantasy/sci-fi aficianados — will be open to such a departure from the often self-focused, merely-romance-saturated fare currently on bookstore shelves. God alone must be glorified in all areas of Christ-followers' lives, including their reading habits — and especially their attempts at literary world subcreation.
Aug. 18, 2006: Correction appendended. An earlier version of this story listed Lee Strobel as current apologeticist for Willow Creek — that is no longer so, and neither is he with the staff of Saddleback Community Church.
Mr. Strobel's beliefs, however, do not include literal creation; a theistic evolutionist, he supports in his book, The Case for the Creator, the more-vague and -culturally-acceptable Intelligent Design concept. And useful as it may be (and more headlines-prone), this movement does not directly point to the Creator/Savior of the Bible.
Answers in Genesis today has this update from an Illinois supporter, offering his mild criticism of “a well-known mega-church” for its pseudo-Creation beliefs and reinterpretations of Genesis.
We left [a well-known mega-church*]. Here is what transpired and pushed me over the edge (and out of that church).
I attended since 1982, but after a progressive creationist spoke at the church in 2005, I spent the next eight months confronting the elders and staff at the church. Sadness filled my heart to see them reject biblical truth.
There is so much to say about what happened. The bottom line was that I gave up believing there was any hope of the leadership holding a biblical view of the authority of the Word of God.
We withdrew our membership. They had the resident theologian call me to talk about it. The first 30 minutes went well but the last 15 made me angry.
(brackets in original)
Perhaps AiG didn't mean to hide it that well, but it doesn't take much to determine, most likely, that the church being referred to is in fact Willow Creek Community in Barrington, Ill.
It is sobering, indeed, to realize that such an influential institution is so weak on such a vital doctrine as Biblical creation. Yet, such a position is not surprising. Willow Creek — and most “seeker-friendly” mega-churches, regardless of whether my guess is correct — makes it their business to attract “seekers,” that is, people who are supposedly “seeking” spirituality or Christianity and haven't found it in the “traditional” church.
Even otherwise solidly grounded Armenians — those who do believe people can seek God first — could oppose this approach. The Church, as defined in Scripture, is rather an exclusive bunch: a gathering of believers. At no occasion in the New Testament do any early Church leaders give instructions for how to bring nonbelievers to church, or especially how to conduct the services so they'll feel comfortable. In fact, the only direction mention of an unbeliever coming to a gathering of Christ-followers is made by Paul during his instructions for how believers should prophesy in the best order or worship.
[I]f all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
And only then is it an if statement — “if [. . .] an unbeliever or outsider enters” — not a when statement!
One could certainly carry this truth much too far and treat a local church as some form of country club, barring all outsiders because they're not “in” or they don't get it. But such is not as much a danger in the modern church as the notion that the order or style of worship or teaching must cater to “seekers.”
Christ can certainly use any twisted institution or even bad motivations to teach His Gospel. Yet that is no excuse for dismissing vital Biblical doctrines in favor of appealing to the “unchurched.” However, such techniques have proved necessary for the leaderships of Willow Creek-styled complexes whose central goal thus downgrades toward mere entertainment and provider of shallow “spirituality.” They continue to sacrifice spiritual meat for “idles” — the outsiders who are yanked in rather than who wander in by accident.
And that will of course continue to result in a Church being weakened from within, and persisting in the demand that unbelievers come in here where leaders can manage a safe and controlled environment, rather than the Church members huddling by themselves once or more times a week, and then going out into the big bad world for real missions.
My home theater Star Trek motion picture marathon continues, most recently with the addition of the 1996 release Star Trek: First Contact to my now-seen collection.
Viewing old trailers for this film on the internet only served to increase my anticipation for this movie, after viewing Star Trek: Generations last week. Earlier, I wrote about the first Next Generation television episode I ever viewed (yes, of course I'm way behind):
Last year, I just happened to view what many fans consider the all-time best Star Trek: The Next Generation installments on television: the two-part “Best of Both Worlds” episode. In this epic story, the evil Borg, the now-infamous empire of ultra-collectivist alien life forms, attempts to assimilate U.S.S. Enterprise Captain Jean-Luc Picard and use his knowledge of humanity to invade Earth itself.
First Contact acts as a feature-film sequel to that feature-film-acting two-part television episode. The Borg, it seems, are on the move again, and they manage to generate enough of a time-warp to launch their escape pod back to the mid-21st century and destroy Earthen civilization retroactively. The starship Enterprise quickly follows them back — time travel seems to come easy to the Federation — in order to halt the Borg and set history back on course.
For those unfamiliar, the Borg are certainly among the most disgusting of imagined alien species. A revolting hybrid of biological humanoid organisms and cybernetic implants, they conquer other worlds by “assimilating” them into their Collective consciousness. The chilling proclamation, “Resistance Is Futile: You Will Be Assimilated” is now quite famous — I recall hearing it long before seeing any Borg episodes.
While the Bible indirectly rules out the existence of alien species, malevolent or otherwise, in our own universe dimension ('Alien Intrusion' excerpt: Did God create aliens?), the concept of the Borg is eerily reminiscent of at least one spiritual reality. This is made more apparent by the words of the Borg Queen, introduced in First Contact, who evidently masterminds the ultra-communistic culture of drones in the Borg “hive.” When introducing herself to the captured Lt. Cmdr. Data, this cybernetic, vaguely-feminine creature echoically informs him:
“I am the beginning. The end. The one who is many. I am the Borg.”
This is not only eerily reminiscent not only of the recorded proclamations of a wannabe god, Satan (Isaiah 14), but of a certain C.S. Lewis's satirical supposals of how the Devil and his “drones” also work:
To us a human is primarily good; our aim is the absorption of its will into ours, the increase of our own area of selfhood at its expense. But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself—creatures, whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.
[. . .]
Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve.
-- from The Screwtape Letters
Here Lewis makes the point even more clear: The Creator of the universe and of humanity does seek to draw unto Himself not only people who will be like Him, but who will also, paradoxically, be distinct, separate individuals as well.
Meanwhile, the Devil and his demonic dominion seek the opposite: they want to consume people: literally, to assimilate them.
But thanks be to God — through Him, resistance is certainly not futile.
Ken Ham on Tuesday gave his rundown of a recent Associated Press story about Answers in Genesis and its forthcoming Cincinnati area-based Creation Museum — and his opinion, overall, is that even negative publicity can be a blessing.
AiG’s website (answersingenesis.org) spiked to unbelievable numbers! This also shows that the Creation Museum is going to create the interest we have been predicting, with estimated hundreds of thousands of visitors a year.
However, the FOX NEWS version of the article (even though as someone once said, “It doesn’t matter what you say about me, just spell my name right”) does fairly blatantly exhibit some of the usual anti-creationist agenda we’ve seen from some of the secular media.
Well, I thought Fox was supposed to be fair and balanced, anyway, and perhaps just a little more fair to political conservatives. But clearly, many political conservatives are not only non-Christians, but directly opposed to the truth of the Creator altogether. One need not blame a liberal in FoxNews.com staffers' clothing to explain the headline of its reprinting of the story.
The AP article appeared in many other news sources across the nation and other parts of the world! And we’ve already had a number of different Christian media call for interviews! We are going to have a busy few days fitting in interviews (as I already did today) and making sure other commitments are not neglected! But, it is thrilling to be that busy anyway—it is thrilling because it means we have opportunity to tell the public the truth about God’s Word and the gospel.
The article itself is marginal at best, with idiotic proclamations that the juggernaut of Science opposes the concept of Biblical creation. Writer Dylan T. Loven (uncredited in the FoxNews.com reprint) writes a fair summary of Biblical creation belief, and then immediately hurls a bellowing elephant: “That, of course, is contradicted by science.”
Really? Whose version?
AOL, as Ken Ham said, was much more polite in its portrayal, and even included fair photographs of the museum's exterior and interior. This would be a rarity for the once-fledgling web-subscription service — its headlines are very often politically left — or worse, devoid of any substance whatsoever.
Continued Godspeed to AiG, on the front lines of the culture conflict. ...
Where has Star Trek been all my life? Always in existence, at least since 1966 in its most primitive form, but only recently — I must admit — have I begun exploring the vast reaches of this creative galaxy myself.
Last year, I just happened to view what many fans consider the all-time best Star Trek: The Next Generation installments on television: the two-part “Best of Both Worlds” episode. In this epic story, the evil Borg, the now-infamous empire of ultra-collectivist alien life forms, attempts to assimilate U.S.S. Enterprise Captain Jean-Luc Picard and use his knowledge of humanity to invade Earth itself.
As an attempting author of a sci-fi like novel myself, I am gratified not to have viewed any of this series until now, after the entire project is nearly complete and sequel plans in the works. And I'm content that my work bears very little similarity to Star Trek — except, of course, regarding the most basic elements of space travel and advanced technology.
Tonight, though, my own warp factor increases beyond Next Generation repeats and into first-time viewings of the four Trek feature films with the Next Generation crew, starting with Star Trek: Generations.
I won't write a full review — it's an old film, after all. Yet that didn't hamper the visual effects, I noticed, which to me seemed completely on par with anything modern-day effects artists are capable of rendering. Meanwhile, the plotting, characterization and pacing were very well-done — though it is quite sobering to see the U.S.S. Enterprise D crash-landing into the surface of a planet. ...
No more spoilers will be given here, for those of you who haven't seen it. (You may now count yourselves as one less in number.) The heaven-like “Nexus” zone and the philosophy surrounding it was quite thought-provoking. This fantastic, mobile space “energy ribbon” is like Heaven, of course, in its eternal-like state of bliss — yet both Picard and Kirk realize that nothing done in this false-heaven is worth anything. It's all completely un-substantive.
But although the Trek philosophy bypasses the very real Heaven that awaits certain people after death, that in no way discounts the hints of such an existence during the scenes in which Picard is interwoven with the Nexus. And I found it incredibly interesting — “Intriguing,” as Data might say — that the epitome of a joyous existence, as portrayed by the film, is to be settled down with a loving, beautiful wife, a house at Christmas and a large family of half a dozen children. Is this not the very lifestyle that popular culture rejects as antiquated and strictly optional for men and women?
Cal Thomas's column yesterday is just a few days behind renewed interest in Biblical end-times scenarios — because of certain renewed conflicts in the Middle East, of course.
Out from the back shelves of Christian bookstores will come the John Hagee / Pat Robertson / Hal Lindsey books about the Tribulation and Birth Pangs and such, now more-favorably placed on front displays. And of course, for the first time in a few years, sales of the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins will surely spike again. (Read my review of their recent installment, The Rapture.)
Thomas points out, again, again, again, that such speculation is perhaps among the world's oldest professions — or at least since early A.D.
End-of-the-world prophecies have been around almost since the beginning. Ancient prophets, like Daniel in the Hebrew Bible and John the Apostle, who wrote Revelation, laid down visions of the destruction of the world and its replacement with a peaceful, heavenly kingdom.
Many complex mathematical formulas have been solved, but not “666,” which is the “mark of the beast” foretold in Revelation. Many have guessed at its meaning, but the answer has eluded them. For those interested in the history of false and phony end times prophecy, a partial list can be found at www.isitso.org/guide/endtime.html. It makes for entertaining reading. One of my favorites is the Anabaptist preacher in the early 1500s named Hoffman who declared the end of the world would begin in 1533 and that Strassburg would be transformed into the “New Jerusalem.”
The 1991 Persian Gulf War produced a spike in end-times books and sales. Some of them flatly predicted Armageddon was upon us. Authors noted that modern Iraq is ancient Babylon and they saw the Iraq war as a possible, even probable, fulfillment of end-times prophecies. Like those before them, they were wrong. To paraphrase Stephen Sondheim, “we're still here.”
Authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have created an industry with their best-selling “Left Behind” book series about the Rapture and the disappearance of all Christians before the final battle of Armageddon takes place (15 titles and more than 63 million sold, which testifies to the intense interest in the subject). There is disagreement within Christian circles as to what comes first - Armageddon or the Rapture - but that can be left to those counting angels on pinheads and, for that matter, to pinheads. Whatever they decide isn't going to affect events, though it will sell books.
[. . .]
[T]he end isn't yet upon us, because too many expect it. But, as Tim LaHaye said on “Good Morning America” last week, it is still good to be prepared. Stop worrying about dates and times, though, unless you're writing a book, making a movie, or delivering a speech. In those circumstances, “prophets” can make big profits with their modern equivalent of sandwich boards that proclaim the end is near.
Many “pinhead” Christians are constantly dwelling on this subject, partly out of fascination with the future and hope that we'll get it all figured out in advance — and partly because they believe nothing scares the Hell out of non-Christians like a good apocalyptic scenario.
Whether or not such specific scenarios actually occur, though, it's more true that nothing will scare the Hell out of non-Christians like — Hell. Unlike end-times events, this is one element the Bible is very clear about. Thus, it's more worth presenting it as a very real threat than any specific predictions abour a war, rumors of wars, or the Whore of Babylon (Revelation 17). ...