Copyright © Steven
Hummel, 2001
Idiokairosis:
A Preliminary Diagnosis Of American Protestant Fundamentalist Religion
This
paper represents the analysis of a more specific aspect of contemporary
American Protestant Christian religion, namely, the problem of the
relationship between eschatology (and more specifically, millennialism)
social behavior, and intolerance. The scope of the research encompasses
historical, theoretical and theological resources related to the diverse
nature of apocalyptic spirituality and eschatology.
In its most elementary form, American apocalyptic eschatology is a
belief system that entails an imminent, inevitable destruction and
restoration of the earth by God. Christ will rule the earth and the faithful remnant for a
millennium. At the ultimate
end, the faithful will live forever in heaven and the unsaved will be
resurrected for final judgment and consigned to hell.
Charles Strozier comments, “It is a remarkable myth of violence,
revenge, and renewal.”[i]
It is a proposed solution to the problem of theodicy in which the
justice of God finally prevails over evil.
Complications
and limitations arise from fundamental difficulties: 1. The inconsistent
usage of apocalytic terminology by adherents and scholars; 2. The
inconsistent analysis and classification of denominations in reference
works; 3. The inconsistent methods of statistical reporting by various
denominations; 4. The difficulties in gaining precise contemporary data of
human and financial resources delegated by a particular denomination for
missionary work abroad or similar data related to nondenominational groups
or individuals; 5. Government
officials are not prone to disclose sensitive or classified information
that may compromise surveillance conditions of groups or sects.
Furthermore,
unlike many religious adherents, neither social scientists nor historians
are prone to speculate about the future.
Martin Marty, a sociologist and historian of religion states a
qualification for the researchers who work as historians:
“They work with a logic of tenses that forbids them as
historians to have anything to say about the future.
They join the ranks of the amateurs, the wayward, or the divinely
inspired when they move from the past into prediction or prophecy.”[ii]
The future is fact-free for the historian and the scientist.
Thus, one may only speak of “prospects” for the future in terms
of trends or projections based upon observation or patterns of behavior.
The intent here is to express solidarity with the position of E.
Barker in the sociological study of religion:
The
sociology of religion is concerned with who believes what under what
circumstances, how beliefs become part of the cultural milieu and are used
to interpret people’s experiences, and what the consequences of holding
particular beliefs may be.[iii]
The
operant assertion here is, “what the consequences may
be” as a result of adherence to apocalyptic beliefs regarding issues of
tolerance, national and international relations, and the manner in which
one may speculate as to the consequences of the behavior of a particular
individual with a particular pathology, and, if indeed, apocalyptic
mentality is pathological.
The
limitations of either an idiographic or nomothetic approach for this study
require a modified theoretical approach: this study builds upon three
typological systems: 1)
R. Merton (1968) whose work builds on that of E. Durkheim, M.
Weber, and others, positing the typology of modes of individual adaptation
within a culture-bearing society, (Conformity, Innovation, Ritualism,
Retreatism, Rebellion), of anomie and deviant behavior; and
2) D. Kelley (1972) whose work is seminal in the analysis of
“strong” and “weak” Christian denominations (the conservatives
being the “strong” and growing, and the moderate and liberals being
the “weak” and declining; and 3) James Fowler (1981) whose work
advances the research of J. Piaget, E. Erikson, L. Kohlberg, and, D.
Levinson by proposing the psychological typology of six stages of faith
development: 1.
Intuitive-Projective Faith (early childhood); 2.
Mythical-Literal Faith (pre-teen, 10+); 3.
Synthetic-Conventional Faith (adolescence 13+); 4.
Individuative-Reflective Faith (young adulthood); 5.
Conjunctive Faith (Mid-life and beyond); 6.
Universalizing Faith. The
thesis for this paper is that apocalypticism appeals most to those who
have not developed beyond late stage two or early stage three towards a
more mature faith level.
The
specialized term introduced in this study is idiokairosis/idiokairotic:
the term suggests that whether
or not apocalyptic mentality is pathological, idiopathic or idiographic,
(and does not inevitably lead to violence), it is most certainly
idiochronic, (“self” in chronos
“history”), and, idiokairotic
(“self” in kairos “time”). The
term expresses the understanding of the
meaning of “self” in relation to the perceived or real, positive or
negative, literal-mythic times and seasons of one’s existence and the
end thereof both within and beyond the confines of temporality.
Apocalypticism
is a curious, often paradoxical mixture of pessimism and optimism, fear
and hope, grief and joy, which may surface
in times (idiochronic moments) of conflict and turmoil, but only
because that which is below the surface exists which translates the level
of time to an “idiokairotic moment” for the individual or group: a
sense of time where a legalistic system of reward and punishment is
perceived to be operant resulting in the anticipation of divine justice
and retribution against the perceived enemy in due time, (chronos) and the
reward of divine intimacy beyond mundane relationships.
These sentiments are all undergirded by overt and covert support
systems (preaching, seasons of the church year, hymnody, “signs of the
times”, etc.), exaggerating the levels of tolerance and intolerance
toward others percieved as friends or enemies.
Udo
Schaefer, in The Clash of Religions,
writes regarding the “crisis of intolerance” fueled by the differing contemporary
perceptions of time in this period in history which he defines as a
decisive turning point in history for historians apocalypticists,
scientists, and philosophers: “The
crisis is total and global: total, because it implicates every aspect of
our existence; global, because in an interdependent world, society, there
are no longer any ‘empty spaces’ and everyone is directly affected.”[iv]
The
intent here is investigate the historically marginalized apocalypticists
in the matrix of this global interdependence and examine the bases of the
interactive sociological, psychological and spiritual dimensions of their
identities as human beings, coupled with, but not exclusively dependent
upon nor determined by, external, secular pressures.
Contemporary
apocalypticism (and especially millennialism) has its antecedents in
ancient Near East eschatological systems as scholars have shown (Boyer,
1991, Collins, 1979, Charles, et.al.).
History of Religion and Biblical scholars have demonstrated that
the key component of millennialism is the cosmic struggle between good and
evil, and that understanding the combat myth or motif is integral to
understanding apocalyptic mentality (A. Collins 1999).
The central notion is that God will deliver the faithful by His
victory in the final battle. Important
here is the distinction that it is GOD, not humankind, who will engage in
the final battle (although humankind will experience the turmoil).
Humankind is relatively passive in the battle,
not active; passive, but not neutral.
One might characterize the behavior as being aggressive against the
decaying of values, morality and the like during the remaining time, as
well as actively evangelizing
the world with “the” truth of the Gospel and announcing the impending
end.
Only
a few writers attempt self-criticism of both the message and method of
apocalyptic evangelism and spiritual life (Noll, 1991, McDowell, 1998).
Noll, an Evangelical, writes that Evangelicals respond to a crisis
in one of two ways: mount a public crusade (confront)
or retreat into a pious sanctum:
“. . . we are filled
with righteous anger and attempt to recoup our public losses through
political confrontation, or we eschew the world of mere material
appearances and seek the timeless consolations of the Spirit.”[v]
His evaluation of historical Evangelicalism is that it has been
pragmatic, populist, charismatic, and technological more than
intellectual.[vi]
Josh
McDowell describes Evangelical responses to world conditions as ranging
from capitulation (bending beliefs to make them more acceptable) to
conflict, using political means to restore what he calls the “Christian
consensus” which he believes is now lost in Western countries and
cultures.[vii]
He claims that the world is a “mission field” not a
“battlefield”, not a war of “us against them.”[viii]
He underscores the tenet: “A
society that isolates itself from competing truth claims will inevitably
descend into oppression and tyranny.”[ix]
But this claim is asserted in the cultural context of what he
perceives to be the new intolerance against the absolute truths promoted
by Christianity. His mandate
is, “Remember to aggressively
live in love while humbly pointing
to the truth,” rather than the opposite.[x]
Such
self-critical observations are few and far between, which leads to many
detractions of the mentality and methods of Evangelicalism and
Fundamentalism, especially regarding millennialism.
Richard Kyle describes millennialists as a “cognitive minority”
(14:137).[xi]
George Marsden defines the Fundamentalist as basically an
“Evangelical who is angry about something.”[xii]
A correlation seems to exist that the greater the anger, the more
enthusiastic the evangelism, which by all accounts, has its basis in love,
not anger or hate. The
correlation is explained by the common adage, “Hate the sin, but love
the sinner.”[xiii]
McDowell asserts that this means, “it is essential to distinguish
between who a person is and what a person does.”[xiv]
Therefore, one may love someone who does not believe the same thing
or who acts in an immoral lifestyle.
One can love and hate simultaneously, but the object (the sin or
sinner) is to be distinguished. The
problem is that while the adage is common and the distinction is often
expressed, the overall practice of such tolerance is difficult to
consistently document, although the opposite, namely, highly charged
polemics and projections, are readily accessible, e.g., Van Impe, 1996;
Lindsey, 1994; McAlvany, 1992.
Such
hostile projections coupled with dogmatic and simplistic approaches to
life that are intolerant to ambiguity and uncertainty render a diagnosis
of the Fundamentalist mentality as inherently pathological according to
some researchers.[xv]
Psychologist John Higdon (1997) concurs.[xvi]
Writing in American Atheist Higdon argues that millennialists are superstitious
people who are attempting self-empowerment through energy-saving
intellectual shortcuts in order to account for the present and future of
themselves and the rest of humanity.
The superstitions are immediately gratifying and effortless in
contrast to the difficult and time-consuming efforts of scientific methods
of inquiry. Higdon further
asserts the possibility that such a psychosis is the result of a defect in
the neurotransmitter systems of the brain, thus short-circuiting the
cognitive processes and preventing the accurate assessment of reality.
Unaware of the defect, the individual will feel highly threatened
by the neurological breakdown but will be unable to explain the negative
experience. Some will then
externalize the threat and project it onto their environment.
The projection indicts the “other” as the deserving object of
God’s anger while they remain innocent and undeserving.
This solution to the problem of evil is energy-saving and
reassuring. Higdon does not believe that doomsday fantasy believers pose
a real threat to society and yet he does mention the historic Waco, Texas
and Jonestown tragedies as examples of what may happen again when or if a
particular individual or group has the means to put the fantasy into
effect. On a larger scale,
former President Ronald Reagan is noted as once exemplifying this
possibility as he held to apocalyptic eschatological beliefs.
Stephen
Jay Gould (1998), Professor of Geology at Harvard University dismisses
apocalyptic fervor as the product of “New Age fruitcakes of the
counterculture, to hard-line apocalyptic visionaries at the Christian
fringe, to a thicket of ordinary guys out to make a buck.”[xvii]
Writing in a style similar to Higdon above, Gould counters the
fascination with the millennium as intellectual poverty and scientific
irresponsibility. Gould’s
research of the cultural dynamics at transition of the 19th to
the 20th centuries revealed that the popular notion of the
precise turn of the century did not prevail as has the popular notion at
the transition to the year 2000. The
celebrations at the beginning of the year 2000 confirmed the popularity of
the misconception on a global level.
Stephen
O’Leary (1993) argues that in light of the millions of adherents of
apocalyptic eschatology it is unfair and dangerous to dismiss them as
ignorant fools. Following
Norman Cohn’s work (1957/1980), apocalyptic eschatology functions as a
rhetorical and mythic solution to the problem of evil.
O’Leary criticizes Cohn’s work, however, to the extent that in
modern scholarship, the attempts to define particular sociological
predispositions as being grounded in economic and/or material deprivation
or social dislocation are inadequate.
Cohn’s work in the case studies of economic and psychological
factors of relative deprivation within the medieval movements, O’Leary
argues, may be sufficient; but his extrapolations into modern political
and religious history are suspect because of the inadequacy of the
commonly held view that apocalypticism appeals primarily to the
dislocated, disoriented and marginal elements of society.
Modern apocalyptic movements have cut across all lines of class,
intellectual and economic levels. O’Leary
accounts for the successful appeal of apocalyptic eschatology not on the
basis of a particular predisposition of an audience, but upon the ability
of a rhetor to successfully persuade an audience that a real or perceived
disaster is a sign of the imminent end.
He does not contend that no predispositions exist or that economic
and psychological factors are useless in the analysis of the appeal.
He purposes that ultimately it is the rhetor that develops the sense of dissatisfaction and fear and the attending
theodicical solution to the problem of evil for the adherents.
O’Leary argues for a contextual theory of explanation, i.e.,
“the context of changing cultural assumptions and presumptions about
rationality, about the nature of time and history, and the purpose and
destiny of human collectives.”[xviii]
O’Leary’s
analysis aptly notes the centrality of time and evil in apocalyptic
discourse and texts, citing the work of B. McGinn (1979) who finds three
consistent themes within the changing contexts: 1) a sense of unity and
structure of history conceived as a divinely predetermined totality; 2)
pessimism about the present and conviction of its imminent crisis; 3)
belief in the judgment of evil and triumph of good.[xix]
Apocalyptic discourse is ultimately about time, cosmic time, as
O’Leary defines it, where and when the judgment of history is revealed
as imminent, as a development in real time.
Therefore, O’Leary points to two case studies in particular,
William Miller and the Millerites, and Hal Lindsey, in order to
demonstrate the adaptability of millennial movements within the changing
contexts of American history and animated by persuasive rhetors.
O’Leary’s arguments are very convincing.
The successes of the individuals in his case studies confirm that
the persuasive rhetorical skills of the powerful rhetoric of apocalyptic
language and texts have proved effective enough to propel large varied
segments of the population to act in accordance with the rhetoric,
including spending millions of dollars for the literature.
Eugen
Weber (1999) also counters Higdon’s dismissal of apocalyptic eschatology
as merely a trivial superstition. He
states that arguments from Scripture, including those based on fear,
ignorance or even false assumptions have proved as historically and
sociologically significant as those arguments based upon race, class, or
economic concerns. Denying or
circumscribing aspects of the past that no longer matches modern,
enlightened sensibilities suppresses vital elements of history.
Weber also challenges the notion that apocalyptic belief systems
are the monopoly of the oppressed and disenfranchised only or solely the
domain of the superstitious and intellectually challenged.
Both
E. Weber (1999) and Peter Stearns (1996) note that additional scorn is put
upon apocalypticists by sociologists and psychologists because of the
apocalypticist’s many failures at accurately predicting the future.
Lacy
Baldwin Smith also argues against what appears to be a common hazard of
modern socio-psychological analyses of religious martyrs, a category which
could contain many contemporary apocalypticists, including the
missionaries working in dangerous countries:
In
the hands of the analyst, martyrs have been transformed into hapless
psychotics seeking death as a solution or absolution for the guild,
frustration, anger, and insecurity that lay within them.
But al least psychotic martyrs can be said to have retained their
own individuality and to have possessed their private, if warped, reasons
for death. A far worse fate
has been reserved for martyrs at the hands of the twentieth-century
sociologist who has sought to deprive them not only of their spiritual
identity but also of their uniqueness.
The martyr is cast as the product and symptom of a certain stage of
social development, and the “martyr habit” seen not as a malaise of
the soul but as a disease of society, an institutionally induced
addiction.[xx]
Smith
contends that martyrs are generated by unstable societies struggling in
the processes of restructuring cultural, economic, political and religious
concerns. They believe that
they possess the absolute truth for which they are not only willing to die
but also willing to have others die.[xxi]
Intolerance and action are key components in the willingness for
self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of others.
Further, martyrs usually appear as a group phenomenon and are
strengthened by a sense of collective identity in the defiance and denial
of the existing social order. Lacy asserts that the identity of the martyrs is inextricably
related to their cause: “Obsessed
with the ultimate patter of things, martyrs are driven to act upon the
knowledge that they are God’s or history’s instrument for achieving or
defending absolute truth.”[xxii]
Thus, life, in and of itself, is not the ultimate good.
Soli Deo is then the martyr’s spiritual credo.
A fringe benefit, in addition, is the prospect of beatification in
eternal life, no small reward.
The
notion here is that which may be explained by the classic distinction
between the notions of “reward” or “merit.”
There are two general types of spiritual rewards:
meritum condigno and meritum
congruo. The former, meritum
condigno is the notion that merit or reward is received as in the form
of quid pro quo. The
latter, meritum congruo is the
notion of a reward or benefit of performance for its own sake. This then is the martyr’s initial rationale, whether the
temporal results are life or death.
The
subjective element may interfere with a diagnosis, resulting in the
blurring of the fine line between martyr and fanatic.
A popularized version of this blurring effect might be illustrated
as follows, from a Christian’s perspective: If a Moslem perishes in a
holy war, he or she is a fanatic; if a Christian perishes in a crusade, he
or she is a martyr. The same
analogy could be made in the case of secular warfare involving fanatics
and patriots. The definition
may be biased by the one making the observation. We might suggest that the primary difference between a martyr
and a fanatic is not only the primary sense of cause, but also the
intended beneficiary of the particular action.
If the “self” is the ultimate beneficiary, it is fanaticism.
If the “other” is the ultimate beneficiary, it is martyrdom.
Tension in differentiation exists in that in the case of
apocalyptic eschatology the “self” is deemed righteous and the
“other” is deemed evil. Therefore,
in the extreme, anger, projection, hostility, aggression, and intolerance,
self-destruction or total destruction may therefore be deemed justifiable
for the sake of the meritum condigno.
According
to the recent Federal Bureau of Investigation report, “Project
Megiddo,” anger and projection are two of the three socio-psychological
components known as the “lethal triad” (isolation is the third) which
propel apocalyptic movements.[xxiii]
If one factors in Kelley’s “isolation” characterization of
“strong” groups, the triad is complete, posing at least the potential
for violence or militant activity. While
the more prominent apocalyptic denominational groups are not necessarily
isolated in the extreme sense, they could be defined as being insulated
by the rhetoric and ecclesiastical disciplines of their respective
authorities. There is a fine
line between isolation and insulation in that as Kelley suggests, the
systems of conservative groups are closed, absolute, and have explanations
for everything in matters of faith and life.
We emphasize the notion of conservative systems being primarily
monological, rather than dialogical, output>input.
Ecumenical efforts and attitudes of the hierarchical elites
apparently have little “trickle-down” effect on the general masses.
As a result, the
conservative public at large is kept in the triad, reinforced on the one
hand by the events taking place in the world and by the apocalyptic
literature and rhetoric of worship, sermons, hymnody, popularized
theological materials, and the like.
They are kept in a perpetual state of idiokairosis: mindful of the
evils of the world as perceived by individuals and leadership and also
mindful of the imminent and anticipated justice and judgment of God
against the perceived evil, particularly against others.
William
James, in “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” writes about such
tensions in the human spirit regarding “difference-thresholds;” an
individual with a low fear threshold may easily slip into the deeper
consciousness of the differences in question as they are perceived by the
“morbid-minded” in contrast to the “healthy-minded” individual.[xxiv]
James
underscores the core of the problem of religion as one of theodicy
(although he does not use this precise term):
the question of the justice of God in light of human suffering.
Here
is the real core of the religious problem: Help!
Help! No prophet can claim to bring a final message unless he says
things that will have a sound of reality in the ears of victims such as
these. But the deliverance
must come in as strong a form as the complaint, if it is to take effect;
and that seems a reason why the coarser religions, revivalistic,
orgiastic, with blood and miracles and supernatural operations, may
possibly never be displaced. Some
constitutions need them too much.[xxv]
God is deemed as
responsible for overcoming the evil.
James cites Tolstoy’s recovery from melancholy as a function of
his “thirst for God” and that the “feeling of dread was mitigated by
the hope of finding assistance of some one.”[xxvi]
Therefore, hope is necessary for crossing the threshold forward to
what James calls healthy-mindedness.”
Some
individuals may progress. Others
may not. James notes an individual may experience intense suspicion,
anxiety, trepidation, fear, and as a result, rebel or submit, accuse
himself, or outside powers.[xxvii]
The stage is set for potential rebellion.
The
rebellion suggests that this is a strain toward anomie, presupposed by
alienation from the reigning cultural goals and standards coupled with 1)
feelings of hate, envy and hostility; 2) a sense of being powerless to
express these feelings actively against the person or social stratum
evoking them; 3) a continual re-experiencing of this impotent hostility.[xxviii]
Two general responses are envisaged: 1) Active: taking the
situation in hand, taking control; 2)
Passive: not asserting
active control. If a group is
sufficiently insulated from the rest of society, rebellion may become
endemic providing a potential for revolution in order to reshape the
normative and social structures. To
become activated, allegiances are transferred from the prevailing social
structures to a new group possessed of a new myth.[xxix]
Merton
stresses the importance of a “scale of anomie” to measure the
subjective experiences and the need for improved objective scales to
measure the so-called “anomic factors.” He suggests five subjective
indicators and we note that the first three deal with perception: 1) the perception that community-leaders are indifferent
to ones’ needs; 2) the perception that little can be accomplished in the
society which is seen as basically unpredictable and lacking order; 3) the
perception that life-goals are receding rather than being realized; 4) a
sense of futility; and 5) the conviction that one cannot count on personal
associates for social and psychological support.[xxx]
The key word above all is perception:
how one perceives matters, and the lower the difference-threshold of the
perception of evil determines how easily one steps from idiochronosis to
idiokairosis. As stated before, the effectiveness of the “prophet” is
determined by how well the message that the imminent deliverance will be
as great as the complaint is presented.
Thus,
consistent with the theory of the “lethal triad,” and proportionate to
the degree of anger, projection, and isolation (or insulation), is the
potential for rebellion, the objective measurement of which is suggested by the FBI report on
apocalyptic groups: 1) sequestered groups which have lost access to the
outside world and information preventing critical evaluation of the ideas
being espoused by the leader; 2) The leader’s history involving the
fantasies, dreams, plans and ideas which become the beliefs of the
followers because of the totalitarian and authoritarian nature of cults; 3) Controls of a
groups by charismatic psychopath or those with narcissistic character
disorders; 4)
Changes in a leader’s personality caused by traumatic events such
as death of a spouse or sickness; 5)
Language of the Ideology that contains seeds of violence;
6) Implied Directive for violence, because most frequently, a
leader’s speeches, rhetoric, and language does not explicitly call for
violence, rather it is most often only implied;
7) Length of time: the
longer the leader’s behavior has gone unchecked against outside
authority, the less vulnerable the leader feel;
8) Who is in the inner
circle: Cults with violent
tendencies often recruit people who are either familiar with weapons or
who have military backgrounds to serve as enforcers.[xxxi]
The
mission of the more extreme groups is understood in two general ways:
either to accelerate the end of time or ensure that they survive the
ensuing conflicts. The former
mission is active, the latter is passive: The key principle here is the
nature of the rhetoric: either “God will punish the evil”, or “evil
will be punished” reflects the more passive position.
“God’s chosen people will punish . . . “ reflects the more
active potential.
B.
Robinson poses other specific criteria:
1.
The leader preaches end of the world/Armageddon in 2000 or within a
reasonable time frame before and after 2000.
2.
The cult expects to play a major, elite role at the end time
3.
The cult has large numbers of firearms, explosives or weapons of
mass destruction
4.
The cult has prepared defensive structures
5.
The cult speaks of offensive action
6.
The cult is led by a single male charismatic leader
7.
The leader dominates the membership through physical, sexual and
emotional control
8.
The cult is not an established denomination
9.
Cult members live together in a community isolated from society
10.
Extreme paranoia exists within the cult concerning monitoring by
outsiders and government persecution
11.
Outsiders are distrusted, and disliked.[xxxii]
Number
8 is extremely significant for our discussion in that while no major,
“established” denomination (a term undefined in the FBI report) of
Christianity, millennial or amillennial, espouses violence by its members
in anticipation of or as a response to the millennium, many of these
characteristics, theoretically, could be applied to denominations or
non-denominations or singular “ministries” or institutions which are
at the moment passively awaiting
the millennium, or whose rhetoric is highly inflammatory, projective, and
angry, e.g., (evangelist) Jack Van Impe, J. Dwight Pentecost, (Dallas
Theological Seminary) and others, whose rhetoric and literature is
extremely volatile and distilled by unknown
numbers of individuals and groups.
One
must bear in mind that the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S.
history, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
City, April 19, 1995, killing 168 people, was perpetrated by only two
individuals, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
These two men were allegedly motivated by the desire to avenge the
1993 Federal Government’s siege and destruction of the compound of the
apocalyptic religious cult called the “Branch Davidians” (a
splinter-group from the Seventh-day Adventist denomination), in which the
leader, David Koresh, and 75 of his followers, including 21 children, died
in the flames of the siege of the compound near Waco, Texas.
The point here is that while denominations in and of themselves do
not condone, endorse, or encourage violence, individuals may act autonomously
given the appropriate kairotic moment.
The
final aspect to consider is the stage of spiritual development in which
apocalyptic groups seem to be entrenched, and the correlation between the
analyses of Kelley, Merton, and James, and the research of James Fowler
(1981). We propose that apocalyptic groups are generally in the later
stage 2 (Mythic-Literal) or early stage 3 (Synthetic-Conventional).
Stage
2 is characterized by the individual taking on the stories, beliefs and
observances that symbolize belonging to his or her community.
The beliefs are appropriated with literal interpretations, as are
moral rules and attitudes.[xxxiii]
The worldview is based on reciprocal fairness and immanent justice.
There exists a predisposition of being deeply affected by
anthropomorphic cosmic stories, symbolic and dramatic materials.
However, these individuals are not prone to “step back from the
flow of stories to formulate reflective, conceptual meaning.”[xxxiv]
Fowler carefully words the limitations of stage two:
The
limitations of literalness and an excessive reliance upon reciprocity as a
principle for constructing an ultimate environment can result either in an
overcontrolling, stilted perfectionism or “works righteousness” or in
their opposite, an abasing sense of badness embraced because of
mistreatment, neglect or the apparent disfavor of significant others.[xxxv]
Stage
3 (Synthetic-Conventional) is conventional in that it is the faith system
of the given community, large or small.
It is synthetic, in that it is nonanalytical; a sort of unified
wholeness. It is initially
characterized by the development of formal operational thinking, including
the development of some critical reflection of self and others and can
conceive ideal features of persons, communities or other states of affairs
including possible futures.[xxxvi]
Commensurate with the idealization is the propensity for
egocentrism, narcissistic inflation of self, and harsh judgments of others
and institutions. The
individual may develop a religious hunger for intimacy with God, “as an
infinite guarantor of the self with its forming myth of personal identity
and faith.”[xxxvii]
This intimacy develops into a commitment to God resulting in a
powerful ordering of identity and values.
Fowler suggests that considerable numbers of adults become
permanently equilibrated in this stage primarily because of the intimacy.
The individual is aware of the relationship, values and norms of
the system, articulate them, defend them, and feel deep emotional
investment in them, but has not made the system the object of reflection.
Instead, they continue to rely upon other external authorities, and
avoid challenges to reflection and the resulting responsibility for their
beliefs and actions.
Whereas
in the later stage 4 a sort of demythologization usually occurs, whereby
meanings can be separated from the symbols that bear them, in this stage
demythologization is considered as a threat to meaning, because meaning
and symbol are so closely interwoven.
(Fowler cites how the American Flag was the source of bloody
conflicts during the protests of the 1960’s; burning another’s flag is
still used as a form of protest, of course.)
Any assault on the symbol, in religious terms, is an assault on the
sacred.
Fowler
asserts that at stage 3, an individual has an “ideology,” which he
defines as, “a more or less consistent clustering of values and
beliefs.”[xxxviii]
However, as stated above, the values are not subject to systematic
reflection or explicit criticism. The
“personal myth” of self in terms of identity and faith is developed,
incorporating one’s past and idealized future.
Fowler
identifies two major dangers or deficiencies in stage 3: 1)
“The expectations and evaluations of others can be so
compellingly internalized (and sacralized) that later autonomy of judgment
and action can be jeopardized; or interpersonal betrayals can give rise
either to nihilistic despair about a personal principle of ultimate being
or to a “compensatory intimacy
with God unrelated to mundane relations” emphasis added).[xxxix]
The latter deficiencies account for the adults remaining in stage
three, especially if the world’s standards and expectations are
unreliable or unstable. The
conservative religious system provides a compensatory intimacy with God,
apart from an intimacy with the “world” (mundane relations), complete
with a closed, absolute, conventional and idealized system of values and
norms, administered by the personalized authority.
To proceed beyond these boundaries is perceived to be simply too
great a risk.
For
purposes of comparison, briefly stated, stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective)
is characterized by the challenges and tensions of taking responsibility
for one’s own identity, actions, lifestyle, beliefs and attitudes;
demythologizing, i.e., translating symbols into conceptual meanings;
critical reflection on identity (self) and outlook (ideology).
Its danger is its strength: an excessive confidence in the
conscious mind in critical thought-a second narcissism; that life is more
complex presses one toward more dialectical and multileveled approach to
life truth.[xl]
Stage
5 is characterized by reflection and self-criticism; greater comfort with
paradox and contradiction; vulnerability to other “truths”; a broader
understanding of justice (as understood apart from tribe, class, religious
community or nation); appreciation of other’s myths, symbols, and
rituals. The dangers here are the potentials for passivity,
complacency or cynical withdrawal due to encounters with paradoxical or
mutually exclusive “truths” for which one is yet unwilling to
sacrifice the self even for the sake of a more inclusive justice.
Stage
6 (Universalizing) is characterized by the recognition of partial truths
and their limitations within the context of comprehensive truth; an even
deeper appreciation for the depth of reality to which myth, symbol and
ritual refer; the willingness to sacrifice the self for the sake of a more
inclusive justice in contrast to retributive justice toward others; an
enlarged vision of universal community; ultimate respect for being;
“they create zones of liberation from the social, political,
economic and ideological shackles we place and endure on human
futurity.”[xli]
“Such persons are ready for fellowship with persons at any of the
other stages and from any other faith tradition.”[xlii]
The
central thesis is repeated: apocalypticism
appeals most to those who have not developed beyond late stage two or
early stage three towards a more mature faith level.
Stages
4, 5, and 6 represent an
increase in tolerance and a decrease in volatility in that the “other”
becomes of greater value than the “self”;
a greater measure of stability in spite of paradox and tension;
Justice is inclusive not exclusive.
The worldview is not “either/or,” but “both/and.”
Martin
Marty observes that the apocalyptic mindset leaves no room for ambiguity,
paradox, contradiction, relativity or shading.[xliii]
Such is the description of an individual in levels 2 and 3,
representing the ages of 10-13. Marty further observes in this context that apocalyptic
approaches and alternatives get reduced to simple “either/ors”
(18:479).
Again
we stress that this does not mean that those who endorse apocalypticisms
are simple-minded: As we have noted, Boyer (1992) and others have long
known of the intellectual prowess of those who adopted apocalyptic
interests, such as Milton, Newton, Leibniz, and including President R.
Reagan.[xliv].
Paul Boyer (1991) notes how frequently purveyors of apocalypticisms
stated “We need childlike, unsophisticated minds which are prepared to
accept in the simplicity of faith whatever is written.”[xlv].
Again, adherence does not necessarily mean having a simple mind, but
having an immature faith development.
For an adult to possess such an immature faith, under the
appropriate kairotic
circumstances, is the concern here, whether this be a president, pilgrim,
proselyte, or proselytizer.
While
in and of themselves apocalyptic adherents do not necessarily,
inevitably or invariably constitute a global threat, it is suggested
that extremist splinter groups and/or individuals may separate, form, and
act independently under the influences of millennial fervor, the kairotic
seit geist, and under the auspices but apart from the controls
of a given mission agency or denomination.
Charles Strozier asserts, “the most troubling dimension of endism
is its relationship to violence. In
the endist imagination, transformation out of our present misery-however
differently that is understood by people-occupies a central place.”[xlvi]
It is this dimension that gives rise to concern about potential
national and international problems associated with
Evangelical and Fundamentalist growth and missionary activity
abroad.
Contemporary
research on Evangelical and Fundamentalist spirituality reveals that
scholars disagree on the nature of this spirituality as being
pathological. Most do agree
that there exists as strong potential for anti-social behavior because of
the reverse diagnosis of humanity and culture by these adherents as being
irredeemable, doomed to failure, and near the end at the hands of an angry
God.
The
research also reveals that research which places apocalyptic spirituality
in the matrix of spiritual growth and development concurrent with
intellectual growth does not exist.
There
is little evidence to suggest that either religious or secular
institutions will take steps to curtail or regulate missionary activity
abroad on the grounds of religious freedom.
There is also little evidence that the countries to which the
missionaries are sent have little choice but to attempt the difficult task
of regulating these many individuals and agencies at the risk of violating
Western standards of democratic pluralism and ideals.
Finally,
there is little evidence that non-Western countries, especially Russia,
have the ability to curtail the extremely negative impressions imposed by
a wide variety of popular, conservative religious writers in
America.
American
religious pluralism is firmly grounded in the foundational assumption of
the freedom of religion as an unalienable right commensurate with the
other stipulated unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. The freedom of the
expression of this right is understood to encompass and extend to that
which does not violate existing standards of morality, public order or the
general welfare of those in a democratic society.
We
find that adherents of millennialism may be found at all levels of class,
race, social, economic and intellectual categories.
The most important aspect however, is the evidence that adherence
to millennialism is a reflection of relatively low spiritual development.
Simply put, an individual may be an intellectual adult but remain a
spiritual adolescent.
How
are the beliefs used to interpret experience?
As Martin Marty stresses, fundamentalists are prone to reduce
matters to either/ors. There
is little room for ambiguity or uncertainty.
Evangelical and Fundamentalist theology is “decision” oriented
from the outset of the conversion experience.
Therefore, discernment and choice is the constant dynamic in light
of real and perceived realities of a world already judged as irredeemable
in its present state and hopelessly evil.
In such a perceived hostile environment the millennialist diagnoses
the “other” as evil and subject to God’s judgment.
As Noll acknowledges above, the two responses to crises are
confront or retreat. There is
no middle ground for negotiation, compromise, or tolerance.
Apocalyptic language and literature is grounded in the ancient
combat mythology. The
combative spirit is evident in contemporary millennialist literature and
sermons, both of which are voraciously consumed by the public and in the
particular worship environments.
Under
what circumstances do these believers adhere and act on these beliefs.
Most historians point to the “atrocity tales” of millennial
movements as occurring in times of social upheaval, war, famine, natural
disasters and catastrophes. However,
the movements are only the extreme manifestations of the mentality.
Millennialism is an orientation
toward the future, not unlike patriotism or nationalism or other cultural
orientations. Granted,
millennialism has had its flashpoints, influenced by the types of crises
just mentioned. Adherents
interpret the crises through the filter of their orientation.
Crises do not create the movements; they only intensify what is
already the orientation of the people involved.
The movement would not be possible without the orientation already
existing. The successful
millennialists maintain a heightened orientation for their adherents,
capitalizing on the speed and pervasiveness of the electronic news media,
which, apparently, is itself disaster oriented.
Adherents will act on their beliefs when they are sufficiently
persuaded to act, either as individuals or collectively, not only in times
of crises, but also, and more covertly, in the worship experience as
contemporary events are coupled with Biblical prophecy by the rhetor.
Christian warfare is part and parcel of the Christian experience;
to “fight the good fight of faith” is confirmed on a regular basis in
hymnody and liturgical activities in addition to the heightened
sensitivity that the rhetor may be able to arouse.
In the extreme cases, apocalypticists, especially when confronted,
may resort to violence, as in the case of the infamous Waco tragedy.
What
may be the consequences of adhering to these belief systems?
The most significant consequence is the motivation for evangelism
in an effort to reach the unsaved before the ends.
At the same time, the consequences of the projections of anger have
resulted in international castigations against America’s perceived
secular and religious enemies, including Russia and those of the Moslem
faith. The role of Israel, however, is positive, based upon the
interpretation of prophetic Biblical passages which refer to the
restoration, salvation and end-times scenarios surrounding the millennium.
Intolerance for the former nations and peoples and tolerance for
the latter are serious consequences of millennialism.
Recent
actions taken by local Russian authorities in Moscow heighten the
challenges[xlvii].
At the same time, Russia is being “monitored” by America for
potential violations of religious freedom, no small consequence of
pluralism, missionary zeal and eschatological fervor animated and
legitimized by Western democratic ideals.
One
consequence of adherence to apocalyptic eschatology that is absent
is international accountability for the freedom of religious expression.
There seems to be no consequence for a writer in America to
disparage and demonize and entire country (Van Impe 1996, et. al.) if that
country is or once was construed as “the enemy.”
For example, one might speculate as to the consequences of Van Impe
inserting “Afro-American” or “Israel” where he names “Russia”
as the enemy in his writings.
This
study, in addition to raising the question of apocalyptic eschatology,
also raises the question of the applications of the American Constitution
in other countries such as Russia. Ironically,
in the literature cited above (Van Impe 1996, McCalvany 1994 et. al.) the
American government is also indicted as “the enemy” in the spirit of
apocalyptic eschatology. It
would seem that America, as a relatively new democracy, must also face the
challenges of pluralism and become as accountable for what is being
spiritually exported as it holds others accountable for the responses to
the spirituality being imported, so often so covertly that statistical
information and transparency of operations will not be published.
Bibliography
1.
Barker, Eileen. 1995. “The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking!” Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion.
vol. 34 NO. 3:287-310.
2.
Boyer, Paul. 1991. When Time Shall Be No
More. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
3.
Cohn, Norman. 1970. The Pursuit of the
Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the
Middle Ages. Rev. and
exp. Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Originally published 1957.
4.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. 1999.
“Apocalyptic Themes in Biblical Literature.”
Interpretation. vol. 53
No.2. April: 117-130.
5.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. 1998.
“The Book of Revelation.” in The
Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. eds. Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins,
and Stephen J. Stein. 3 vols.
New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. vol. 1:384-414.
6.
Collins, John. 1998.
“From Prophecy to Apocalypticism.”
in Encyclopedia of
Apocalypticism. eds. Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J.
Stein. 3 vols. New York: The
Continuum Publishing Company. vol.1: 129-161.
7.
Collins, John. 1979. ed. “Apocalypse:
The Morphology of a Genre.”
Semeia 14, Chico,
California: Scholars Press.
8.
Davis, Nathaniel. 1995.
A Long Walk to Church: A
Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy.
San Francisco: Westview Press.
9.
Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America,
and, Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States of America.
Washington: The Cato Institute.
10.
Encyclopedia
of Apocalypticism.
1998. (eds.)
Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein.
3 vols. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
11.
Fowler, James W. 1981.
Stages of Faith: The
Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning.
San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, a division of HarperCollins Publishers.
12.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1998.
Questioning the Millennium.
London: Vintage.
Originally published 1997.
13.
Guidelines
on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies.
1979. World Council of
Churches. May be accessed at http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/glines-e.html.
14.
Higdon,
John. 1996-97. Millennium
Foolishness. www.americantheist.org/win96-7/T3fooishness.html.
15.
Jagodzinski, Wolfgang and Andrew Greeley.
1996. The Demand for
Religion: Hard Core Atheism and “Supply Side” Theory.
May be accessed at http://www.agreeley.com/articles/hardcore.html.
16.
James, Williams. 1997.
The Varieties of Religious
Experience. New York:
Simon & Schuster Inc. (Originally
published 1901).
17.
Kelley, Dean M. 1972. Why Conservative
Churches Are Growing: A Study in
the Sociology of Religion. New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
18.
Kyle, Richard. 1998.
The Last Days Are Here Again.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House
Co.
19.
Lawson, Ronald. 1995. “Seventh-Day Adventist Responses to Branch Davidian
Notoriety: Patterns of
Diversity Within A Sect Reducing Tension With Society.”
Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion. vol.
34, No. 3:323-341.
20.
Lindsey, Hal. 1994. THE LATE GREAT PLANET
EARTH and SATAN IS ALIVE AND
WELL ON PLANET EARTH. New
York: International Press. Previously
published in Two separate volumes as: THE
LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH. 1970,
1977 by Zondervan Publishing House, and SATAN
IS ALIVE AND WELL ON PLANET EARTH.
1972 by Zondervan Publishing House.
21.
Marsden, George. 1991. Understanding
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22.
Marty, Martin. 1998. “The Future of No Future: Frameworks of Interpretation.”
in Encyclopedia of
Apocalypticism. 1998.
(eds.) Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein.
3 vols. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
vol. 3:461-484.
23.
McAlvany, Donald S. 1992. Toward A New World Order: The Countdown to Armageddon.
Phoenix, Arizona: Western Pacific Publishing Co.
24.
McDowell, Josh and Hostetler.
1998.
The New Tolerance. Wheaton:
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 231
pp
25.
McGinn, Bernard. 1979.
Visions of the End:
Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages.
New York: Columbia
University Press.
26.
Merton, Robert. 1968. Social Theory and
Social Structure. Toronto:
Collier-Macmillan Canada, Ltd.
Originally published 1949.
27.
Moscow
Tribune.
February 18, 2000. Dimitry Polikarpov. “Religious
Law Fails to Beat Sects.”
28.
Noll, Mark. 1991. “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.” Christianity Today.
October 25: 28-32.
29.
O’Leary, Stephen D. 1994.
Arguing the Apocalypse: A
Theory of Millennial Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
Project
Megiddo.
1999. United States
State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
May be accessed at http://www.fib.gov/library/megiddo/publicmegiddo.pdf.
31.
Schaeffer, Udo. 1998. Beyond the Clash of
Religions. Stockholm:
Zero Palm Press.
32.
Smith, Lacey Baldwin. 1997.
Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The
Story of Martyrdom in the Western World.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
33.
Sterns, Peter N. 1996.
Millennium III, Century XXI.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers.
34.
Strozier, Charles B. 1994.
Apocalypse:
On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America.
Boston: Beacon Press.
35.
Stutzman, Linford. 1996.
“To Win the Hearts and Minds: Evangelical Mission Activity in
Albania as Global Culture War.” Journal of Ecumenical
Studies, 33:1:44-58.
36.
Taliaferro, Charles. 1998.
Contemporary Philosophy of
Religion. Malden,
Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
37.
United
States Policies in Support of Religious Freedom: Focus on Christians. Released by the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Affairs, July 22, 1997.
May be accessed at http://www.usia.gov/topical/rights/religion/religion.htm
38.
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
July 6, 1994. Last edited on January 27, 1997.
May be accessed at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html
39.
Van Impe, Jack. 1996.
2001:
On the Edge of Eternity.
Dallas: Word
Publishing.
40.
Weber, Eugen. 1999. Apocalypses:
Prophecies, Cults, and Millennial Beliefs Through the Ages.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
41.
Williams, David. R. 1994.
“The Measurement of Religion in Epidemiologic Studies: Problems
and Prospects.” pp. 125-148 in Levin, Jeffrey S. (ed.)
Religion in Aging and Health:
Theoretical Foundations and
Methodological Frontiers. Thousand
Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
42. Wojcik, Daniel. 1997.
The End of the World as We
Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America.
New York: New York University Press.
[i]
Strozier, Charles B. 1994. Apocalypse:
On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America.
Boston: Beacon
Press. p. 2.
[ii]
Marty, Martin. 1998. “The
Future of No Future: Frameworks
of Interpretation.” in The
Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism.
vol. 3:461-484. p. 467.
[iii]
Barker, Eileen. 1995. “The
Scientific Study of Religion? You
Must Be Joking!”
Journal
for the
Scientific Study of
Religion.
vol. 34 No.
3:287-310. p. 295.
[iv]
Schaeffer, Udo. 1998. Beyond
the Clash of Religions. Stockholm:
Zero Palm Press. p. 19.
[v]
Noll, Mark. 1991.
“The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.”
Christianity Today. October 25: 28-32. p. 32.
[vi]
ibid. p.31.
[vii]
McDowell, Josh and Bob Hostetler.
1998.
The New Tolerance. Wheaton:
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 84.
[viii]
bid. p 102.
[ix]
ibid. p. 61
[x]
ibid. p. 146
[xi]
Kyle, Richard. 1998. The
Last Days Are Here Again. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Co. p.
137.
[xii]
Marsden, George. 1991. Understanding
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p.1.
[xiii]
McDowell, op. cit. p. 15.
[xiv]
ibid. p. 87.
[xv]
Williams, David. R. 1994. “The
Measurement of Religion in Epidemiologic Studies: Problems and
Prospects.” pp. 125-148 in Levin, Jeffrey S. (ed.)
Religion in Aging and
Health: Theoretical
Foundations and Methodological Frontiers.
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. p. 140
[xvi]
Higdon, John. 1996-97. Millennium
Foolishness. www.americantheist.org/win96-7/T3fooishness.html
[xvii]
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1998. Questioning
the Millennium. London:
Vintage. Originally
published 1997. p. 195.
[xviii]
O’Leary, Stephen D. 1994. Arguing
the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric.
New York: Oxford University Press. p. 15
[xix]
ibid. p. 16.
[xx]
Smith, Lacey Baldwin. 1997.
Fools, Martyrs, Traitors:
The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 18.
[xxi]
ibid. p. 15
[xxii]
ibid.
[xxiii]
Project Megiddo.
1999. United
States State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
May be accessed at http://www.fib.gov/library/megiddo/publicmegiddo.pdf.
p. 28.
[xxiv]
James, Williams. 1997. The
Varieties of Religious Experience.
New York: Simon
& Schuster Inc. (Originally
published 1901). p. 119.
[xxv]
ibid. p. 139
[xxvi]
ibid. p. 135
[xxvii]
ibid. p. 129
[xxviii]
Merton, Robert. 1968. Social
Theory and Social Structure.
Toronto: Collier-Macmillan
Canada, Ltd. Originally
published 1949. p. 210.
[xxix]
ibid.
[xxx]
ibid. p. 218
[xxxi]
Project Megiddo.
1999. United
States State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
May be accessed at http://www.fib.gov/library/megiddo/publicmegiddo.pdf.
p. 27
[xxxii]
ibid. p. 28.
[xxxiii]
Fowler, James W. 1981. Stages
of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for
Meaning. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
a division of HarperCollins Publishers. p. 149.
[xxxiv]
ibid.
[xxxv]
ibid. p. 150
[xxxvi]
ibid. p. 152
[xxxvii]
ibid. p. 153.
[xxxviii]
ibid. p. 173.
[xxxix]
ibid. p. 173.
[xl]
ibid. p. 183.
[xli]
ibid. p. 201
[xlii]
ibid.
[xliii]
Marty, Martin. 1998. “The
Future of No Future: Frameworks
of Interpretation.” in The
Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism.
vol. 3:461-484. p. 479.
[xliv]
Boyer, Paul. 1991.
When Time Shall Be No More. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
p. 310.
[xlv]
ibid. p. 308.
[xlvi]
Strozier, Charles B.
1994. Apocalypse: On the
Psychology of Fundamentalism in America.
Boston: Beacon
Press. p. 251.
[xlvii]
Moscow Tribune.
February 18, 2000. Dimitry
Polikarpov. “Religious
Law Fails to Beat Sects.” p. 3.
