Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
L.B.: Why doctors hate healthy people

L.B.: Why doctors hate healthy people

Last updated on: April 20, 2007 at 4:19 pm by Fred Clark

L.B.: Why doctors hate healthy people 2007-04-20T16:19:25-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Left Behind, pp. 265-268

Have you seen that bit with the offering plate? They pass this thing around in church and people fill it up with money. Clearly, that's what this whole "church" thing is really about. Money. All those priests, pastors, ministers, chaplains, friars, missionaries, etc. — they're all just in it for the money.

That's one theory, anyway, albeit a ridiculous one I've never heard anyone seriously advocating. But I've heard theories like it. Such theories always tell you much more about the theorists themselves than about the supposed subject of their theories.

If some hypothetical anti-clerical zealot were actually to make the argument above, you would have to conclude one of the following things about them:

1. They might be attacking a straw man they know to be false. Unable or unwilling to engage the reality of what churches actually are, they've decided instead to sketch a ridiculous caricatured version and then attack their own creation as though it were the thing itself. The anti-church critic, in other words, might be a dishonest hack.

2. They might not know any better. Perhaps, somehow, they've never encountered anyone who worked at or even attended a church, and so they have no idea what churches actually do or how or why they do it. In other words, the critic might be well-intentioned but massively ignorant. (At some point, of course, such utter ignorance can only be maintained willfully — thus ceasing to be well-intentioned.)

3. They might think this is how everything works. They may subscribe to some materialistic grand scheme or ideology (Marxism or laissez-faire anarcho-libertarianism perhaps). or they may be, themselves, primarily driven by this kind of motivation, so they just assume that no one else has any other motive either.

None of these options paints a very favorable picture of our hypothetical critic, but then it would be difficult to imagine any way of favorably viewing anyone who would seriously put forward such a stupid argument.

Which brings us to today's section in Left Behind, wherein we encounter something very similar to the hypothetical critique above. This is a dazzlingly awful passage, almost Bushian in its ability to combine pedantic smugness with a near-total misapprehension of reality. It's a bit like the song "Little Known Facts" in You're a Good Man Charlie Brown — with LaHaye and Jenkins in the role of Lucy, taking the readers by the hand and, with grating condescension, explaining how snow comes up "out of the ground — like grass."

Rayford drives to the church to pick up a replacement copy of the ICR video. Chloe tags along because she's afraid to be home alone in case the robbers come back for the rest of Raymie's toys.

The Rev. Bruce Barnes is saddened, but not surprised by the news of the break-in. "It's as if the inner-city has moved to the suburbs," he says.

You know, the "inner-city" — nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Not that that's a code word or anything. Not at all. And the New Jerusalem will be a glorious suburb.

Rayford leaves the church and becomes a whirlwind of activity:

While they were out, Rayford bought items that needed to be replaced right away, including a TV and VCR. He arranged to have the front door fixed and got the insurance paperwork started.

Because the insurance companies, like the police, aren't busy with anything else. While Rayford attends to all of this, Chloe apparently goes back into the state of suspended animation in which she seems to spend all of her time apart from her father. (Again, she has no job and she's not in school — what is she doing all day? She's like Carol Brady.)

And then, inevitably, the phone rings. It's Hattie. Rayford tells her about the robbery, and Hattie provides the awkward segue into the heart of this section of the book:

"Things are getting so strange," she said. "You know I have a sister who works in a pregnancy clinic."

"Uh-huh," Rayford said. "You've mentioned it."

"They do family planning and counseling and referrals for terminating pregnancies."

"Right."

"And they're set up to do abortions right there."

Hattie seemed to be waiting for some signal of affirmation or acknowledgment that he was listening. Rayford grew impatient and remained silent.

Hattie apparently listened politely while Rayford told his story, but that was different because it was his story. Hattie mistakenly thinks she's due the same courtesy. Her misunderstanding is all part of that wacky battle of the sexes — it's just like that book, Women Are From Venus, Men Are From the Planet of Impatient, Misogynist Jackasses.

"Anyway," she said, "I won't keep you. But my sister told me they have zero business."

"Well, that would make sense, given the disappearances of unborn babies."

"My sister didn't sound too happy about that."

"Hattie, I imagine everyone's horrified by that. Parents are grieving all over the world."

There, at last, is the sentence we should have been reading over and over again for the last 250 pages: "Parents are grieving all over the world." Every child on the planet disappeared on page 15 of this book and here, on page 266, is the very first mention of Rachel crying for her children. Oddly though, Rayford's comment doesn't seem to refer to all parents — just to those of "unborn babies."

"But the women my sister and her people were counseling wanted abortions."

Rayford groped for a pertinent response. "Yes, so maybe those women are grateful they didn't have to go through the abortion itself."

"Maybe, but my sister and her bosses and the rest of the staff are out of work now until people start getting pregnant again."

You can see where they're trying to go here, but what on earth is she talking about?

Hattie's sister works in reproductive health, at a pregnancy clinic. Last Monday, every child on earth disappeared and every pregnant woman on the planet became instantaneously unpregnant. This development raises some rather urgent questions about, you know, the future of the human race. The idea that Hattie's sister and her coworkers would be sitting around idle is inconceivable — conceivability being the key word here. All of those formerly pregnant women are going to need medical examinations to confirm that the Divine Abortionist didn't create complications. The still unresolved question of future fertility — for those women, for all women and for all men too — would need to be explored. Hattie's sister wouldn't be out of work, she'd be working 18-hour shifts.

"… my sister and her bosses and the rest of the staff are out of work now until people start getting pregnant again."

"I get it. It's a money thing."

"They have to work. They have expenses and families."

"And aside from abortion counseling and abortions, they have nothing to do?"

"Nothing. Isn't that awful? I mean, whatever happened put my sister and a lot of people like her out of business, and nobody really knows yet whether anyone will be able to get pregnant again."

I am not up to the task here. I cannot begin to catalog all that is wrong with this bizarre straw-man. Do L&J really think that places like Planned Parenthood "have nothing to do" apart from "abortion counseling and abortions"?

But buckle up, it gets worse, with Rayford rolling his eyes and silently mocking Hattie all along:

Rayford had to admit he had never found Hattie guilty of brilliance, but now he wished he could look into her eyes. "Hattie, um, I don't know how to ask this. But are you saying your sister is hoping women can get pregnant again so they'll need abortions and she can keep working?"

"Well, sure. What is she going to do otherwise? Counseling jobs in other fields are pretty hard to come by, you know."

Wait, didn't we just say that parents are grieving all over the world? I'm thinking the grief counseling centers might be hiring. Then again, those grief counselors are a bunch of evil bastards. It's a money thing. They want there to be more grief just so they can keep working.

The good news, at least, is that those sick monsters running the orphanage industry are out of work too, so maybe now they'll finally stop going around killing parents just so they have work to do.

He nodded, feeling stupid, knowing she couldn't see him. What kind of lunacy was this? He shouldn't waste his energy arguing with someone who clearly didn't have a clue, but he couldn't help himself.

"I guess I always thought clinics like the one where your sister works considered these unwanted pregnancies a nuisance. Shouldn't they be glad if such problems disappear, and even happier — except for the small complication that the human race will eventually cease to exist — if pregnancies never happen again?"

Silly Hattie. Silly, foolish, female Hattie just doesn't have a clue. She doesn't realize that the ultimate goal of abortion rights advocates is universal forced sterilization. After all, what else could "pro-choice" possibly mean?

The irony was lost on her. "But Rayford, that's her job. That's what the center is all about. It's sort of like owning a gas station and nobody needs gas or oil or tires anymore."

"Supply and demand."

"Exactly! See? They need unwanted pregnancies because that's their business."

"Sort of like doctors wanting people to be sick or injured so they have something to do?"

"Now you've got it, Rayford."

…

… I …

…

I give up. If the authors can't be bothered to forge a trail through the twists and turns of their logic here, then I can't be expected to map it out it for them.

Just go back to the beginning of this post and re-read my hypothetical critique of the church. It is, as I said, massively and pervasively inaccurate — a dismissive straw man that corresponds to nothing in the actual world. Re-read the possible reasons someone might advocate such a theory: intentional dishonesty, ignorance, ideological myopia, projection. (Am I missing something? Are there other possible explanations?)

So, then, two questions: 1) Which of these do you think explains this passage in Left Behind? And 2) Does it really matter?

Left Behind

Previous Post

April 20, 2007

Vendredi

Next Post

April 23, 2007 Happy Andrew Natsios Day

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Christian principle is highlighted in the parable of the Good Samaritan?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Only help friends Ignore strangers Compassion for all Seek praise