« Small Is Beautiful | Main | Matters of Life and Death »

Who's Afraid of the Millenarians?

02 Jun 2008 09:57 pm

I am no great admirer of the apocalyptic style in religion or politics, but I would find Ian McEwan's essay on the clear and pressing danger posed by end-time thinking vastly more persuasive if he didn't crown his argument with this passage:

Within living memory we have come very close to extinguishing our civilisation when, in October 1962, Soviet ships carrying nuclear warheads to installations in Cuba confronted a blockade by the US Navy, and the world waited to discover whether Nikita Khrushchev would order his convoy home. It is remarkable how little of that terrifying event survives in public memory, in modern folklore. In the vast literature the Cuban missile crisis has spawned - military, political, diplomatic - there is very little on its effect at the time on ordinary lives, in homes, school, and the workplace, on the fear and widespread numb incomprehension in the population at large. That fear has not passed into the national narrative, here, or anywhere else as vividly as you might expect. As Spencer Weart put it: "When the crisis ended, most people turned their attention away as swiftly as a child who lifts up a rock, sees something slimy underneath, and drops the rock back." Perhaps the assassination of President Kennedy the following year helped obscure the folk memory of the missile crisis. His murder in Dallas became a marker in the history of instantaneous globalised news transmission - a huge proportion of the world's population seemed to be able to recall where they were when they heard the news. Conflating these two events, Christopher Hitchens opened an essay on the Cuban missile crisis with the words - "Like everyone else of my generation, I can remember exactly where I was standing and what I was doing on the day that President John Fitzgerald Kennedy nearly killed me." Heaven did not beckon during those tense hours of the crisis. Instead, as Hitchens observes, "It brought the world to the best view it has had yet of the gates of hell."

I began with the idea of photography as the inventory of mortality, and I will end with a photograph of a group death. It shows fierce flames and smoke rising from a building in Waco, Texas, at the end of a 51-day siege in 1993. The group inside was the Branch Davidians, an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists. Its leader, David Koresh, was a man steeped in biblical, end-time theology, convinced that America was Babylon, the agent of Satan, come in the form of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the FBI to destroy the Sabbath-keeping remnant, who would emerge from the cleansing, suicidal fire to witness the dawn of a new Kingdom ... In that grim inferno, children, their mothers, and other followers died. Even more died two years later when Timothy McVeigh, exacting revenge against the government for its attack on Waco, committed his slaughter in Oklahoma City. It is not for nothing that one of the symptoms in a developing psychosis, noted and described by psychiatrists, is "religiosity".

So here we have three anecdotes. In the first instance, the world is brought to the brink of thermonuclear destruction by a pair of none-too-religious politicians and their advisers, influenced in their decision-making by a combination of old-fashioned power politics and secular fantasies of global revolution. In the second instance, a religious fanatic who appears to have posed a danger only to the small group of men and women taken in by his mix of spiritual and sexual charisma dies, along with his followers, amid a botched and legally-dubious assault by one of the law-enforcement arms of a secular government. In the third case, a political fanatic of no discernible religious beliefs perpetrates a gruesome act of mass murder, with the aim of punishing the same government for its conduct in the second instance. None of the three offers a particular compelling testament to the dangers of religious millenarianism, as opposed to other motivations for potentially lethal conduct, whether on the level of states or individuals.

Now obviously there are more dangerous religious madmen in the world than David Koresh, and obviously McEwan is on firm ground when he argues that some of the various great crimes of history have been rooted in apocalyptic hopes and fears. But his own anecdotes offer a useful reminder that worldly motivations tend to play a vastly larger role in war and terrorism and similar evils than do spurious prophecies of an imminent Armageddon or dumb misreadings of the Book of Revelation. This is true even among religious believers: From Crusaders trying to conquer the Holy Land to contemporary jihadis hoping to restore the Caliphate, from Woodrow Wilson trying to make the world safe for democracy to George W. Bush trying to, well, make the world safe for democracy, religiously-motivated political actors are much more likely to believe that God wants them to pursue a particular geopolitical objective than they are to assume that He wants them to ring in the actual End of History with a hail of bombs (or suicide bombers). People whose fondest wish is to hasten end of the world can be dangerous, no doubt, and perhaps one such fanatic will yet succeed in ringing in the apocalypse with a suitcase nuke or a vial of Captain Trips. But in general, such people tend not to advance to positions where they can do world-historical damage. Which is why the worst crimes, well-meaning and otherwise, usually aren't committed by the millenarians who keep a good secularist like McEwan up at night; they're committed by rational actors, religious and secular alike, who want to change the world we live in, rather than bring it to an end, and fail to count the fatal cost of pursuing their ambitions.

Comments (27)

McVeigh - in the larger scheme of things - was a small-time nut, but not so much smaller than Osama bin Laden. Dumbya Bush has been a big-time nut, and if endtime fantasies from the trashy little chapter known as the Book of Revelation played any part - any part at all - in his "thinking" then it's a serious matter indeed.

This is why McCain's flirtation with absolute nutjobs like Hagee is troubling. Hagee is one of the biggest endtimes loonies in the country - wrapped up and even appearing in some of the movies made by wackaloon fundie "Left Behind" studio Cloud Ten.

Surprise, surprise, yet another Ross Douthat apologetic for religious fundamentalism--even though McEwan explicitly states that he's also attacking secular apocalyptic beliefs. The essay is a useful reminder of the dangers, and prevalence, of this type of thinking. A frightening large proportion of Americans think the world is going to end within their lifetimes, and maybe that's not even so bad--except that a lot of those people are actively trying to bring about this coming Apocalypse!

Of course it's true that these end-time fanatics haven't killed off quite as many people as various other groups of fanatics (religious and secular). They've still killed off a lot of people. And the less obviously overt effects can't be discounted either. It's not clear to me how Douthat can pen screeds lamenting the sexualization of our culture while simultaneously dismissing the truly corrosive and dangerous damage that end-time ideology causes to a functioning society.

for a partial list of crimes committed by FBI agents over 300 pages long see
campusactivism.org
click on home
click on forum
scroll down to FBI WATCH

a species that hires bodyguards to protect it looses the ability to protect itself and is doomed to extinction

"Hi, I'm Ross Douthat, and I approve of the fundamentalist Christian message."

Yes, he does.

Ian McEwan's "Atonement" reminded me of Richard Grenier's insight that when people complain about movie adaptations of their beloved books, what they are often complaining about is not that the filmmakers' distorted the book, but that the movie inadvertently exposes the books' flaws by projecting them 30 feet high, silliness that wasn't as visible on the page due to the authors' prose styles.

Let's not be too hard on Ross. He's a religious guy who I assume is well-versed in the positive aspects of religion. Is it so strange that he might be somewhat blind to religion's foibles?

I mean, it's not as if you're going to get vegans to admit that if everyone swore off meat, we'd be dooming cows, chickens, and pigs to a slow extinction (or at best, slavery as pets).

Millenarianism can be quite dangerous, but traditionally the danger is more in unstable nations. In prosperous and stable societies a truly millenarian mass-movement either doesn't arise or remains comparatively placid.

The people who should "be afraid" of millenarians would mostly be in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Southeast Asia. There are several Islamists movements that are essentially millenial, in some cases they are even preparing for the second coming of Jesus. (In Islamic apocalyptic folklore the second-coming of Jesus does exist, although its purpose and meaning is obviously different as Jesus is purely a prophetic figure to them)

To some extent then millenarian American groups going to Latin America or Africa may, in some cases, be of concern. In America or Norway or whatever a belief in an imminent second-coming might simply cause greater prayerfulness or even lobbying. There is little violent or revolutionary element in these groups in the developed world. In say the Congo or even the poorer parts of Bolivia millenarianism could go much different.

That said it's not one sized fits all. The Shakers are millenarian and they've always been harmless, if slightly peculiar, pacifists. The Jehovah's Witnesses, although problematic in more respects, have basically been harmless in the grand scheme of things.

Ahh I see I was a bit confused. The title aside you're not necessarily referring to millenarianism. Millenarians hope for a radical change that brings a "time of peace and happiness." It's about an "end of history" in a way, but it's not necessarily about ending the world. In the developed West the most common forms might be

"The Rapture" - Christ will return making a "New Earth" of peace and glory.

Marxism - The world will progress to some kind of blissful egalitarian society that marks a kind of end-point to history.

"The Singularity" - Machines will evolve on their own. In the millenarian version they will evolve so rapidly they will solve our problems and create a world without scarcity.

Re: Dumbya Bush has been a big-time nut, and if endtime fantasies from the trashy little chapter known as the Book of Revelation played any part - any part at all - in his "thinking" then it's a serious matter indeed.

There is no evidence that this is the case. Bush in fact is a Methodist (the same as Hillary Clinton) and the Methodist Church is not noted for its end-times fanatsies. And on a personal level Bush shows no particular theological or scriptural depth to his religiosity. It seems his Christianity is the Twelve Step sort: Jesus as rehab coach.

Re: This is why McCain's flirtation with absolute nutjobs like Hagee is troubling.

I suspect that McCain has no more religion than a horse. No, I don't like him playing footsy with the Hagees of the world, but he's doing it for cynical political reasons only. It's wildly unlikely he would tap such men for any position of responsibility in his administration.

Re: Of course it's true that these end-time fanatics haven't killed off quite as many people as various other groups of fanatics (religious and secular). They've still killed off a lot of people.

Please list instances when end-timers have committed acts of mass murder.

So I take it Ross agrees that the Iranian mullahs are rational actors and not suicidal religious loons who can't be dealt with like other world leaders. This (implied) opinion almost approaches a position on an issue of significance that isn't abortion. That's progress.

I'd like to make a point that others have made here but do so a little more explicitly. Religion (at least the monotheistic western varieites) is a form of historicism along with marxism, etc. It is the historicist aspects that are dangerous for many reasons. Karl Popper did a superb job of explaining how and why in his books, The Open Society and It's Enemies Vols. 1 and 2 and in The Poverty of Historicism.

It's the notion that there is a pre-ordained end toward which history must attain that is the pernicious element in these belief systems. People become willing to do anything in the furtherance of the pre-ordained end. It becomes a kind of mental masturbation that is it's own raison d'etre.

Whatever you do! Don't mention how religious millenarianism and Christian Zionism have poisoned US relations to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Must not be mentioned by ross.

McEwan cites the Cuban missile crisis as an example of the product of millenarian thinking. Actually the cause of it can be traced to JFK wanting a meeting with Khrushchev to discuss general matters between America and the Soviet Union. At this meeting in Vienna Khrushchev managed to intimidate Kennedy; he, also, concluded that JFK was a weak American leader following the strong Eisenhower. Khrushchev then decided to send missiles to Cuba.

Obama should pay attention to this along with the manifold naive Carter attempts at diplomacy. He is just now more naive than Kennedy and Carter on the matter of personal diplomacy by presidents. Miscalculation by leaders is far more dangerous than airy millenarian thinking.

"That fear has not passed into the national narrative," McEwan writes, to our detriment.

When we actually faced incineration, it didn't seem so great.

That's his point, as I take it, not that Khrushchev and Kennedy were devotees of Jerry Falwell or John Hagee.

Martin Luther, BTW, wrote that "Christ is neither taught nor known in" the Book of Revelation. Which, of course, is why it's the favorite book of Huckabeeans.

I basically agree with your article I just have a pet peeve. rather then:

From Crusaders trying to conquer the Holy Land

It should be :
From Crusaders trying to _re_conquer the Holy Land

(As the holy land had been Christian for approximately 1000 years before the Muslim conquest and Jewish for thousands more)

McEwan writes some of the finest sentences of any living prose author. But those sentences tend to add up to a poorly-reasoned mush of psychobabble and navel-gazing, and the dominant literary theme of his writing seems to be concern trolling.

His novel Saturday nicely illustrates the mental state lurking behind this column. It's about a self-absorbed brain surgeon who can't decide whether to support the Iraq War, and then goes through an improbable sequence of coincidences that lead to...
(SPOILERS!)
...his home being invaded by a thug suffering from an easily-diagnosed neurological condition, whom he proceeds to charm with poetry, push down the stairs, and then operate on his brain to save his life.

Or in other words, it reads as a brief for arty, pretentious liberal interventionism premised on abject ignorance of how human beings actually think and act. File under Blair, Tony.

Re: As the holy land had been Christian for approximately 1000 years before the Muslim conquest

The Holy Land may have been Christian, but it was certainly not the possession of Western European kingdoms. If any Christian nation had had a claim on the region it was Byzantium.

Bill:

So if for example today indians started a rebelion to reconquer their land in America, you will support them? I mean...the land was theirs thousends of years before the arrival of white christians that occupy it. And I guess you will support palestinian struggle to reconquer their own land, who was theirs 50 years ago only...isn´t it?

Khrushchev then decided to send missiles to Cuba...Miscalculation by leaders is far more dangerous than airy millenarian thinking.

Seems like Krushchev was the one who miscalculated. But since he was a democrat, err... I mean communist...I guess your point that republicans never miscalculate stands.

Don't mention how religious millenarianism and Christian Zionism have poisoned US relations to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Yeah, that's the big one. I probably agree with about 90 percent of Ross' point; I think the actual policy effects of devout Christians trying to bring on the Rapture are for the most part pretty minimal.

But clearly, there's plenty of support of Israel's settlements in the West Bank that arises from this sort of mindset. Enough to make it difficult for the US to pressure Israel to stop the settlement activity. And of course, settlements make the Israel-Palestinian conflict much worse than it has to be, which in turn blows back in the form of anti-American terrorism as well as attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

JonF,

Byzantium had reights to Jerusalem that preceded those of the West (well, perhaps the Syrians or Armenians had even prior rights). But none of those Eastern Christian powers was in any position to enforce their rights, with the Turks' knife at their throat. At that time it seems like the Western kingdoms were the only ones who could realistically push back the Muslim advance.

In a more general sense, of course the Apocalypse of St. John has been responsible for some evil, but also much good. The vision of a perfected earth, of the New Jerusalem, of the ultimate defeat of Babylon, and more general that the oppressions and injustices of the world need not be permanent, are powerful and recurrent ideas through Western history that have inspired some of our greatest social thinkers and our most progressive social movements. They weren't particularly common in most other parts of the world or in the classical West. In large part, they stem (either in their original religious sense or in a secular sense) from the visions of St. John.

Jesus Christ certainly does feature in Revelation, he is the one who says 'I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last....' and many other things in a similar vein. Luther was simply wrong about that, as he was wrong about quite a few other things.

Re: Byzantium had reights to Jerusalem that preceded those of the West (well, perhaps the Syrians or Armenians had even prior rights). But none of those Eastern Christian powers was in any position to enforce their rights, with the Turks' knife at their throat. At that time it seems like the Western kingdoms were the only ones who could realistically push back the Muslim advance.

You know, one could use that justification fo the
Soviet Union's policy toward Eastern and Central Europe between 1945 and 1989. Add in the fact that most of the people were either Slavic or Orthodox or both (East Germans and Hungarians excepted) and Stalin had the right idea.
As for the Crusades, not often advertized in the history books is the fact that they had been called at the behest of the Byzantine Empire which was seeking allies against the Turks. But they did not attack the Turks, which might have yielded a long-term victory and ultimately avoided the centuries-long Ottoman dominance of southeastern Europe-- heck, Constantinople might be the capital of the Byantine Republic today! An despite oaths of fealty the Crusader chiefs did swear to the Byzantine Emperor as soon as they were in a position to carve out realms of their own, they repudiated their oaths and set crowns on their own heads (and rather blood-stained crowns at that). Then there's that unpleasant business in 1204 when the Fourth Crusade decided why fight the infidels when there were riches untold to be had in the undefended city of Constantinople.
The Crusades were a disaster to Christendom, Hector, and the future was far worse for them.

Uh....Jonestown, anyone?

And wasn't there that little incidence of a bunch of wackaloon religious fundamentalist crazies trying to blow up the Temple of the Mount in Jerusalem?

And what about that religious nut caught down in Texas with obscene amounts of ammunition, guns and explosives?

(I haven't even gone very far back in history, either.)

Re: Uh....Jonestown, anyone?
And wasn't there that little incidence of a bunch of wackaloon religious fundamentalist crazies trying to blow up the Temple of the Mount in Jerusalem?
And what about that religious nut caught down in Texas with obscene amounts of ammunition, guns and explosives?

This thread is not just about "religious nots". If that were the case Al Qaida would have pride of place. It's about religious nuts who think the End of the World is at hand and act accrodingly. Any evidence that the above examples were motivated by this sentiment.

Does no one read their Eric Hoffer anymore?

The root cause of the environmental declines we are facing throughout the world is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Once one-fourth part of the earth is destroyed (Re.6:7-8) we will move forward to the next Seal events, followed by Trumpet events, followed by Plague events. The earth is on a downhill slid; it will not recover. The first four Trumpet events will destroy an additional one-third part (Re.8:7-12).

Patricia © Bible Prophecy on the Web
Author of the self-study aid, The Book of Revelation Explained © 1982

Patricia, sit on your Trumpet events and rotate.