WILL THIS BE the year that the world ends? The question is a serious one for some evangelical Christians, who await the cataclysmic war of Armageddon, forecast in the Book of Revelation, that will precede the return of Jesus Christ to earth.
The exotic details of Armageddon theology might not interest the secular layman were it not for the present-day political implications of that theology. After all, we are not talking about the eschatological fancies of a small sect in the mountains. Some 40-50 million Americans call themselves born-again; the vast majority of them have been exposed to the Armageddon perspective. Nearly 15 million people have bought Hal Lindsey's book "The Late Great Planet Earth," a handbook of evangelical prediction and prophecy.
Today Armageddon theology is aggressively promoted on television by preachers such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. All these men are politically active and one, Robertson, is seriously considering a presidential bid. Even the current occupant of the White House seems an aficionado of Armageddon theology; during the 1984 campaign President Reagan noted that biblical prophecies were being fulfilled as never before, and we could be in the last days.
This evangelical passion about the end times might normally be written off as part of a harmless tradition of religious egocentrism -- a belief that the world cannot go on without you, and since you are here, it must be time for Christ to draw the curtain on human history. But many Christians, Jews and secularists do not take such a benign view of Armageddon theology and its contemporary resurgence. They worry that evangelicals and fundamentalists who eagerly anticipate Christ's return might try to expedite the process -- by fomenting a crisis in the Middle East or a confrontation with the Soviet Union that could lead to a nuclear Armageddon.
Remarks by some prominent evangelicals reinforce these worries. Jerry Falwell says, "You and I know that there's not going to be any real peace in the Middle East until one day the Lord Jesus Christ sits on the throne of David in Jerusalem." James Robison claims, "There'll be no peace until Jesus comes. Any preaching of peace prior to his return is heresy." And Pat Robertson insists, "There's not going to be any peace until God's peace, what we call the Peace of Jerusalem, which the Prince of Peace brings to that troubled region."
These remarks raise an obvious question: Since these men seem to think that human efforts to secure peace will inevitably be frustrated, is it not reasonable to assume that they will not be eager to pursue peace agreements, either through arms control or through negotiations to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict?
Actually, that is not a reasonable assumption. To see why this is so -- why most of the concerns about the political ramifications of Armageddon theology are unjustified -- it helps to understand what evangelicals and fundamentalists really believe about how the world will end, and further to see how they put those beliefs into practice in the political arena.
The vast majority of American evangelicals are Premillennial Dispensationalists. This means they see history in terms of a series of "dispensations," or eras, all preceding Christ's return and thousand-year rule, the Millennium. Evangelicals believe that we are now in the sixth and final dispensation, when a number of events foretold in the Bible, most significantly the founding of the state of Israel, are being realized in alarming succession. In a discussion of the end times Christ says, "This generation shall not pass away before these things have taken place." Evangelicals believe he was talking about the generation to come after the founding of Israel, in other words, this generation.
Soon, these evangelicals and fundamentalists expect, they will be "raptured" or literally absorbed into heaven. Evangelical pastor Tim LaHaye explains: "The Rapture will be an event of such startling proportions that the entire world will be conscious of our leaving. There will be airplane, bus and train wrecks throughout the world. Who can imagine the chaos on the freeways when automobile drivers are snatched out of their cars?" Only born-again Christians will exit; non-believers will be left behind to sort out the debris, and then face the horrors of the Tribulation.
The Bible refers to the tribulation as the "time of Jacob's trouble." This means it will be an especially trying time for Jews and for Israel. Most evangelical bible scholars believe the Soviet Union will invade Israel and wreck such destruction that Jews will have to turn, in desperation, to the Messiah they have forsaken. Another terrifying force, the Antichrist, will raise armies to lay waste to most of Europe and Asia. There will be global war on such a scale that, as the book of Ezekiel tells us, "seven months will be spent burying the dead." The tribulation will finally end with the conversion of Israel, a reversal of fortunes for the Soviet Union and the Antichrist (sometimes viewed as one and the same) and their eventual defeat, and the triumphant return of Christ to reign in peace for a thousand years.
If this was all there was to it, one might legitimately fear that people who expect to be "raptured" out of the earth shortly preceding the war of Armageddon should have no great qualms about bringing the world closer to that moment. For them, after all, it's nothing but a joy-ride into heaven, followed by long parties with sweet maidens serving up all kinds of goodies. Meanwhile, the rest of the world must endure unimagineable horrors, but even here evangelicals can enjoy the spectacle knowing that all that angst is going to lead to defeat for the Antichrist and the Communists, and conversion for many pagans and Jews.
Evangelical theology, however, does not stop here. There are several passages in the Bible that complicate, and in some cases contradict, the outline of events given here. Fundamentalists are obliged to take these texts seriously because they are not metaphorical (as biblical literalists, fundamentalists have tremendous difficulty when it comes to recognizing figures of speech) but stated in plain language. All indications are that Falwell, Robertson and the rest are fully aware of the Bible's caveats about understanding Armageddon, as well as its instructions on how Christians should prepare for the end.
The first such caveat is the Bible's insistence that no one knows for sure when the end will come. "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, not even the angels in heaven, but my Father only," says the gospel of Matthew. Numerous other passages reinforce this uncertainty. Thus Jimmy Swaggart concludes, "Only when we realize that the church could be raptured any day, that there is no definite time revealed for this great moment, can we conscientiously tech others to be spiritually prepared at all times." Jerry Falwell has said that we should plan as though we have anther hundred years or more to serve God, but live as though He could come tomorrow.
A small group of fundamentalists, including those connected with Bob Jones University, are so convinced that the end is imminent that they have virtually withdrawn from the institutions of the world, regarding political involvement and even voting as a futile endeavor, which one fundamentalist likened to "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." These eremetical fundamentalist groups, it would be fair to say, have given up on efforts to work for peace or nuclear agreement; indeed they have given up on the world together. But they are a small minority. They are far from the centers of power. They spend most of their time evangelizing and proselytizing. They may be a doorstep irritation, but they threaten no one's life or liberties.
The millions of evangelicals who have entered politics and involve themselves in issues as diverse as welfare reform, regulation of drugs and pornography, and sex education and the teaching of evolution, are clearly not acting as though they believe the end is upon us. In fact Bob Jones and his followers have attacked Falwell and Robertson for forming secular alliances to bring about social reform. Jones believes that in these final days all energy should be concentrated on spreading the gospel.
The theological reason for political activism on the part of so many evangelicals and fundamentalists is biblical passages outlining Christian duties to the state, to "render unto Caesar" his due, and to be the "salt of the earth." Salt, Jerry Falwell says, is a preservative. "Christians have a biblical responsibility to be a force for preservation in the modern world."
This includes working for peace. Fundamentalists are quite aware of passages such as "Blessed are the peacemakers," from the gospel of Matthew. Pat Robertson has noted, "The Bible clearly asks that as much as is possible in us, we should live in peace with all men." Most fundamentalists do not understand eschatological predictions to be inconsistent with working for peace or social improvement. "We will work to better the world because the Bible tells us to, and we will await Christ's return because Scripture says it will happen," write Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson, two theologians at Liberty University.
Evangelical and fundamentalist groups are all investing heavily in the future. Both Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's universities, for example, have architectural and curricular plans that go into the 21st Century. There would not be much point to drawing these up if the two men are so convinced that all their students will be raptured into heaven in the next few years. Fundamentalists are building churches, schools and missionary outposts abroad at a rapid pace because in their hearts they believe that God is giving them more time to evangelize the world and prepare it for the Second Advent.
Evangelicals are also backing the measures that they believe will make the world a safer place. For instance, they tend to be strong backers of strategic defense. Now it is possible to argue that SDI will, in reality, destabilize the arms race and make the world less safe. But fundamentalists do not think this. They support SDI as a shield, and no one has questioned the sincerity of their conviction.
"Why would we be for missile defense if we felt that it postponed the Second Coming?" Dobson and Hindson ask. They wrily add, "If we really wanted to accelerate the end, we would support the agenda of the American left and the Communist Party, because we firmly believe that unilateral disarmament is a sure way to send this country into the arms of its Maker."
Ultimately it comes down to this: Evangelicals and fundamentalists realize, as most secularists do not, that eschatological prophecies cannot be speeded up or altered to suit human timetables. There have been conditional prophecies in the Bible. In the Old Testament, for instance, communities could save themselves from Divine wrath by repenting for their sins. But the Armageddon prophecies are unalterable, and recognized to be so by fundamentalists. Pat Robertson told U.S. News & World Report that Armageddon is "an act of God Almighty that has nothing to do with human abilities whatsoever. I have no intention of helping God along in this respect."
Dinesh D'Souza is the managing editor of Policy Review. His most recent book is "The Catholic Classics."
