L.B.: An interlude, ending with a hug

Last updated on: July 3, 2012 at 6:57 pm by Fred Clark

L.B.: An interlude, ending with a hug 2012-07-03T18:57:44-04:00 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. 298-301

This section doesn't quite work. If Tyndale Press had employed an editor for Left Behind (though, clearly, they did not), then that poor soul would have needed to convince LaHaye and Jenkins to do a bit of rewriting here.

But as a reader I'm willing to cut them some slack for this passage for at least three reasons, which we'll deal with in turn.

First, because this little interlude is somewhat nobly intentioned. It serves a kind of pastoral function for those readers who share the authors' stern notion of the ultimate fate of those who have failed to pray the magic words.

Most of LB revels in the eternal suffering of the damned. The logical sequel to this series of books would be L&J's Inferno — a journey through Hell in which the authors could savor the anguish and eternal torment of everyone who disagreed with them in this life: the scientists and seminarians; the humanists and humanitarians; the Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Episcopalians and mid-trib advocates; the thousands who die every day in poverty without ever having heard or accepted the innovations of Adventist eschatology that might have saved their immortal souls. All of these have committed the sin of blasphemy against the teachings of LaHaye, and so all receive their temporal comeuppance in Left Behind. The only thing that might bring the authors greater delight would be cataloging that comeuppance as they imagine it will occur throughout an eternity of deserved suffering.

But here, briefly, that triumphalism is put on hold as L&J consider the discomfort that this framework can cause to those readers who may have loved ones who have not yet spoken the magic words. Like Jesus said of the Pharisees, they have bound heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, and laid them on their followers' shoulders. Unlike the Pharisees, though, L&J are at least willing, for a moment, to offer one finger to help carry the weight. This passage is that finger's worth of help — their attempt to console readers with loved ones who reject premillennial dispensationalism and therefore, they believe, deserve Hell.

The stand-in for these lovers-of-the-damned is, of course, Rayford Steele, who we find racked with grief over the as-yet unresolved eternal peril facing his daughter Chloe. The interlude begins with the belated realization that this is not the only cause Rayford has for grief:

Rayford Steele could not sleep. For some reason he was overcome anew with grief and remorse over the loss of his wife and son. He slid out of bed and onto his knees, burying his face in the sheet on the side where his wife used to sleep. He had been so tired, so tense, so worried about Chloe that he had pushed from his heart and mind and soul his terrible loss. …

That "for some reason" is odd. It's barely been a week since Rayford lost his wife and son (and his co-pilot, and surely a few other acquaintances, all at once, which has to account for something even with a friendless loner like Rayford). He's barely had time to begin cycling through the Kubler-Ross stages of grief. There's no wrong way to grieve, and it's not at all strange that it takes a week for it to hit him like this. What is strange is that it doesn't hit him like this again, repeatedly, in the weeks and months to come.

The one bit here that rings true is the recognition that his preoccupation with Chloe's spiritual state has been a distraction from his grief. Late one night last month a friend of mine's mother passed away. At 8 a.m. the next morning he was on the roof of his parents' house, cleaning the gutters. He spent the next two days rebuilding their deck and redoing the landscaping in front of their house. This is something we humans do when confronted with death and grief. We clean. We throw ourselves into the welcome distraction of fixing those things that can be fixed because it helps to shield us from having to confront head-on that which cannot be fixed.

Rayford's response to his loss, and his actions over the past week of the story, might have been richer — more human and more sympathetic — if we had been allowed to see him wrestling with his grief in this way. That would have entailed a level of complexity in which L&J don't seem interested — or, worse, won't allow. To what extent is Rayford's newfound religious zeal a side-effect of the shock of loss? To what extent is his own conversion a form of bargaining ("God, if you'll let me see Irene and Raymie again, I'll …")?

Those sorts of questions are off-limits in the world of LB, in which nearly always a good or evil deed is the result of a correspondingly good or evil motive. We've noted that Carpathia would have been a far more interesting character if his expressed idealism had been at all genuine, if the Antichrist had been portrayed as more of a tragic figure. But tragedy, and even the possibility of tragedy, is not part of L&J's world. (Nor is comedy.) Fallen humanity, they seem to believe, is wicked, but not fallible — our only shortcoming is sin.

This denial of the tragic, ironically, leads to a hubristic view of human nature. It is also a failure to love. To deny the tragic is to suggest that God loves sinners less than Homer loved Achilles or Shakespeare loved Macbeth. Theology is always just as concerned with human nature as it is with the nature of God, and bad theology inevitably gets both wrong. This is bad theology.

The second reason I'm inclined to treat this section charitably is because, like an Olympic judge, I want to award points for degree of difficulty. Rayford is meant to be in anguish here, and anguish is not an easy thing to portray. Whether on the page or on the stage, the audience will always be able to tell if you're faking it. Jenkins is faking it, which makes it seem like Rayford is too. We're faced with the literary equivalent of overacting:

Rayford knew he had been forgiven for mocking his wife, for never really listening, for having ignored God for so many years. … But that didn't stop the aching emptiness in his heart, the longing to hold his wife and son, to kiss them and tell them how much he loved them. He prayed for the grief to lessen, but part of him wanted it, needed it, to remain. …

As Rayford knelt praying and weeping, a new anguish flooded over him. He felt hopeless about Chloe. Everything he had tried had failed. …

Rayford had never felt more powerless and desperate. How he longed to have Irene and Raymie with him right then. And how he despaired over Chloe.

He had been praying silently, but the torment welled up within him, and despite himself he heard his own muffled cries, "Chloe! Oh, Chloe! Chloe!"

There's more where that came from, enough of it to cause readers to suspect that Jenkins wrote this with an open thesaurus next to him, turned to the entry for "sorrow." It's not as howlingly bad as most of this book tends to be, but it does show again Jenkins' trademark notion of ars poetica — for all the history of grief / the phrase "all the history of grief." It's not necessarily an inaccurate portrayal of the emotions we are told Rayford is feeling, but neither is it the sort of portrayal that would make any reader who actually has felt this think that Jenkins has felt the same thing. (I hope, for Jenkins' sake, that the abstract quality of this scene arises from his never having experienced what Rayford is going through here. If that's not the case, then he has my sympathy, but come on man, learn to use it.)

The final reason I don't want to judge this scene as harshly as the text that surrounds it is because it deals, primarily, with character. This is, for L&J, rather uncharacteristic. Chloe's eventual salvation is, like everything else in the book, mainly treated as a plot point — as an event that has to occur next, not because it flows out of the events that occurred before, but because the plot dictates that we must hurry along to the next dot on our Bible Prophecy Timeline. Reading LB is a bit like being on one of those rushed guided tours — No time for lingering in front of the Van Goghs, the agenda says we have to see all of the French Impressionists in the next 20 minutes. But here, for a moment, we're allowed to linger:

"Are you all right, Dad?" she asked quietly.

"Yeah."

"Nightmare?"

"No, I'm sorry to disturb you."

"I miss them, too," she said, her voice quavery. Rayford turned and sat with his back to the bed. He held his arms open to her. She came and sat next to him, letting him hold her.

"I believe I'll see them again someday," he said.

"I know you do," she said, no disrespect in her voice.

Whatever its merits or demerits as a piece of writing, that scene, for once, treats the Steeles as human characters and not just pawns of plot and prophecy. Characters can't be treated like that for very long before they begin to assert themselves, to begin making choices that the author may not have foreseen.

Such willfulness on the part of their pawns is something that L&J will not allow to go unchecked. They quickly reassert their control. As punishment for his brief flirtation with autonomy, Rayford is forced to take a passive role for the next 14 pages as flagrant exposition is dictated to him, first from CNN anchors who appear to have the authors' outline of the book on their TelePrompTers, and then from Bruce Barnes, who delivers a sermon on "Hal Lindsey for Dummies." Chastened by this beating, it will be a long time before Rayford again behaves as anything resembling a real human.

Left Behind

Previous Post

June 29, 2007

Piektdiena

Next Post

July 3, 2007 Scaife-funded blasphemy

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

What does "Gad" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Fortune Joyful Chosen One Warrior