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
TF: Section 4

TF: Section 4

Last updated on: May 25, 2010 at 3:13 am by Fred Clark

TF: Section 4 2010-05-25T03:13:24-04:00 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.

Tribulation Force, pp. 219-226

Our scene opens with Rayford and Chloe breathlessly gathering around the television for a CNN special breaking-news report: President Fitzhugh has just announced that he is lending the plane that was to become his new Air Force One to the United Nations for use by Nicolae Carpathia.

This is big news for Rayford, specifically, but it's a bit baffling as to why the authors think it would otherwise be newsworthy.* The way they tell it, CNN's special breaking news report includes both a press-room appearance by the president and a "live response from Carpathia in New York."

"This unusual gesture," the anchor says, "came as a result of a meeting early last evening" between the two leaders at the White House. That meeting itself was apparently not regarded as newsworthy, only the bit about the airplane. Nor do the authors or their fictional CNN anchors see anything newsworthy or remarkable about the president's comments following his announcement of the gift of a single plane. Those comments seem to me to be much bigger news — probably even the sort of thing that would force a president to resign mid-term:

"It's time the world rallies round this lover of peace, and I am proud to lead the way by this small gesture.

"I also call upon my colleagues around the globe to seriously study the Carpathia disarmament proposal. Strong defense has been a sacred cow in our country for generations, but I'm sure we all agree that the time for a true, weaponless peace is long past due. I hope to have an announcement soon on our decisions in this regard. …"

The authors are contending that it would be possible to survive politically after publicly endorsing total, unilateral disarmament. Not nuclear disarmament, mind you, but "weaponlessness" — the complete disbanding of the military, the border guards, the national guards, the police.

More than that, the authors are contending that a president recommending such a thing would meet with unanimous approval.

That's an astonishing thing to believe. Have Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins ever visited America? Where do they get this weird, unrecognizable picture of this country and the people who live here? It's an extension, I think, of their premise that peacemaker = potential Antichrist = evil. Thus peacelover = potential dupe of the Antichrist = blind follower of evil.

But it's also the end product of a self-confusing view based on the presumption that other people are deserving of being left behind and damned. Start with a dislike of hippie-liberals. That leads to the creation of over-the-top straw-man caricatures as a way of mocking those hippie-liberals. That, in turn, leads to an increasing confusion in which one loses the ability to distinguish between the actual, real-world hippie-liberals and one's own imaginary versions of them, leading eventually to a situation in which one believes that Other People really are just exactly like the worst thing one can imagine imagining about them.

Once you get to that point, it no longer matters that these Other People don't act like they believe the things you're accusing them of believing, or that they strenuously deny believing the things you're accusing them of believing. Their denials are obviously lies and their behavior is obviously some elaborate deceptive plot — that's just the sort of thing those sneaky evil Other People would do.

Hence scenes like this one, in which CNN reports excitedly about the Air Force One non-story, mentioning only as an afterthought the fact that the president of the United States has just said he's planning to abolish the military — a plan which meets with universal acclaim, because this is just what those hippie-liberals have wanted to do all along and now that the RTCs have all been raptured there's no one left behind to stop them.

So the American president endorses "weaponlessness" and no one bats an eye. Not even Rayford and Chloe:

"… I'm sure we all agree that the time for true, weaponless peace is long past due. I hope to have an announcement soon on our decisions in this regard."

"Dad, does this mean you would –?"

But Rayford silenced Chloe again with a gesture as CNN cut to New York for a live response from Carpathia.

That would be Carpathia responding to the important news about the airplane, not to that other thing about a weaponless peace, which he, like everyone else, finds unremarkable:

Nicolae gazed directly into the camera, appearing to look right into the eyes of each viewer. His voice was quiet and emotional. "I would like to thank President Fitzhugh for this most generous gesture. We at the United Nations are deeply moved, grateful and humbled."

The more the authors describe Nicolae's TV persona the less I picture him as a young Robert Redford and the more I picture him as Robert Tilton.

"Man is he slick." Rayford shook his head.

"That's the job you told me about. You'd be flying that plane?"

"I don't know. I suppose. I didn't realize the old Air Force One was going to become Air Force Two, the vice president's plane. …"

Here is where, if this were a Michael Crichton novel, we would learn all sorts of fascinating details about the history, specifications, traditions and lore of Air Force One. Probably more than we wanted to know, since Crichton loved to over-research these things and then seemed like he couldn't bear to leave any of that research out of his novels. This being a Jerry Jenkins novel, that factoid about Air Force Two is just about the only accurate item in a chapter obsessed with, but uninterested in learning about, the president's plane. For instance Jenkins never explains, or thinks he needs to explain, why a commercial civilian pilot would be considered for a job that had previously only been performed by active-duty members of the Air Force. (Although I suppose Pres. Fitzhugh has just solved that riddle for us in his otherwise-ignored announcement that there will no longer be an Air Force.)

The back-and-forth between Rayford and Chloe about his taking this job ends, yet again, with Rayford insisting he's "Surer now than ever" that he doesn't want the position.

You can cross-reference that comment with this helpful Tribulation Force Plot Summary to see where we are in the story:

1. Rayford Steele and Buck Williams are summoned to meetings at which they are offered highly paid jobs working for the Antichrist.
2. Buck vows never to take such a job.
3. Rayford vows never to take such a job.
4. Repeat sections 2-3.
5. Repeat section 4.
6. Repeat sections 2-5.
7. Repeat sections 2-6. Twice.
8. Buck and Rayford accept the jobs.
9. Rocks fall, Bruce dies.

I've lost track of precisely where we are in that outline, but I think this is the third or fourth iteration of Rayford's vow. And that can only mean it's time to cut back to Buck vowing not to take his job, either.

Buck Williams is on the telephone.

Alice called to tell him that Stanton Bailey wants him to call, which she learned when Marge Potter called Verna. No, really:

Buck took a call from Alice at the Chicago office. "You'd better get two lines into there," she said, "if you're going to keep working from home."

"I've got two lines," Buck said. "But one of 'em's for my computer."**

"Well, Mr. Bailey's been trying to reach you, and he's been getting a busy signal."

"What did he call there for? He has to know I'm here."

"He didn't call here. Marge Potter was on with Verna about something else and told her."

Buck gets off the phone with Alice and dials Marge in Stanton Bailey's office. I've decided, purely for my own amusement, that the part of Marge Potter will be played by Eve Arden.

I believe that almost any story can accommodate and benefit from the addition of an Eve Arden character, so for now I have her playing Marge.

"Buck, I miss you already," she said. "What in the world happened?"

"Someday I'll lay it all out for you," he said. "I hear the boss has been trying to reach me."

"Well, I've been trying for him. Right now he's got Jim Borland in there, and I hear raised voices. Don't think I've ever heard Jim raise his voice before."

"You've heard Bailey raise his?"

Marge laughed. "Not more than twice a day."

See? Eve Arden would have made that line work.

Marge puts Bailey on the phone. He's dropped the har-de-har-ing jokey-yokel routine and he's back in gruff executive mode. "Williams," he barks, "you've got a lot of nerve …"

Buck is apparently accustomed to his boss's sudden swings from one broad stereotype to another, so he's able to calmly explain the lopsided horse-trade he worked out with Jimmy and he gets Bailey to sign off on it.

Three pages. Four phone calls. And the plot hasn't budged an inch since the last time we checked in with Buck. Remarkable.

Rayford, meanwhile, is puttering around his house, reassuring himself yet again that he'll never, ever, ever take the job flying Not Air Force One. This gradually morphs into a meditation on how proud he is not to be so hung up on pride anymore:

He couldn't deny the prestige that would accompany being the president's pilot. And being Carpathia's might be even noisier. But Rayford's motives and dreams had swung 180 degrees. Being known as the pilot of Air Force One — or even Global Community One — for seven years was simply not on his wish list.

Prestige, yes. Piloting Air Force One would be prestigious. But "being known"? Not so much. It's not exactly a ticket to fame. (Quick, name the current pilot of Air Force One? OK, how about name any pilot of Air Force One ever? Yeah, me neither.)

There's a bit more self-congratulation about how nice it is that he's no longer obsessed with what others think of his expensive car and his big, suburban home. This allows him to relax and enjoy his expensive car and his big, suburban home without worrying about such vain, shallow concerns. (As St. Paul wrote, "Godliness with contentment and a fully loaded current year E-Class sedan is great gain.")

But thinking about his big house eventually leads Rayford to remembering the people who no longer live there. It's a bit treacly and maudlin, but at least we finally get to see Rayford acting like someone who's just recently lost his wife and son:

Every room, every knickknack, every feminine touch reminded him of Irene. Occasionally something would jump out and flood his mind with Raymie, too. He found a piece of Raymie's favorite candy under a cushion on the couch. A couple of his books. A toy was hiding behind a potted plant.

We could quibble — telling details are better when they include a bit more detail (which books?) — but generally speaking this is head and shoulders above Jenkins' usual approach. He's showing rather than telling. He's finally resisting the urge to spell it out for us with clumsily explicit, yet still contentless sentences like, "Rayford was growing emotional."

Rayford was growing emotional.

Oh well. Still, telling and showing is better than Jenkins' usual telling instead of showing. So let's give him an "E" for effort.

And anyway, I'm willing to cut both Jenkins and Rayford a little slack in this scene because of what our hero does next. He decides to cook dinner for Chloe. Shrimp scampi, her favorite.

That's a nice gesture and I'm so moved by this uncharacteristic display of unselfishness on Rayford's part that I'll refrain from snarky commentary.

I won't sardonically note that Chloe had better enjoy the shrimp while she can because in a few years the seas will boil and turn to blood and scampi will be hard to come by. And I'll even skip over without discussion the half page of antifeminist stereotyping masked as Rayford's self-criticism in which he laments his failure to fully express his gratitude to Irene for her womanly kitchen-work as an expression of her lovingly obedient submission to her husband. The retrograde ugliness of that would likely spoil our ability to enjoy Rayford's otherwise lovely gesture, so let's not even mention it. (And while we're at it, we'll also avoid speculating as to whether this passage might be read as a thinly veiled criticism of the way some wives seem to think it's OK not to show such loving devotion to their husbands, abandoning them to a life of frozen dinners in San Diego while they're off running some anti-gay lobby on the other side of the country).

This long passage of self-flagellation ends with Rayford bemoaning his inadequate and "perfunctory" expressions of gratitude to Irene for the home-cooked meals she served him every night:

Now there was no way to make it up to Irene, except to show up in the kingdom himself, with Chloe alongside.

By "the kingdom" Rayford means Heaven. This is pretty much the only thing you need to know about the premillennial dispensationalist beliefs of "Bible prophecy scholars" like Tim LaHaye. For them, "the kingdom" means Heaven. And only Heaven.

Nothing else. Nothing more. Nothing here.

You can see the problem with that idea if you've ever been to a service in a Christian church — even just for a wedding or a funeral. Because if you've ever been to a Christian church, then you've heard us pray that prayer we always pray whenever we get together. It's a prayer that Jesus himself taught us and told us to pray: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. …"

See if you can make sense of that if "thy kingdom" and "heaven" are one and the same. It doesn't seem possible.

PMD prophecy types say they avoid reciting the Lord's Prayer because Jesus also cautioned us against prayer with "vain repetitions." (The possibility of repetitions that are not in vain apparently hasn't occurred to them.) But I think the real reason they avoid it is because it confounds them. It confronts them with the idea of the kingdom as both an actuality and an aspiration explicitly distinct from the otherworldly heaven to which they hope one day soon to be snatched without dying.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

* Despite their purported setting "in the not-so-distant future," these books contain very little in the way of futuristic details. But we could pretend this is one of them.

Consider how CNN — a cable news channel — is delivered to our homes. For many of us, this content arrives through the same infrastructure that provides our access to the Internet. We might expect, then, that eventually the content of news channels like CNN will be personalized and prioritized according to the same sorts of preference-algorithms that tailor websites like Google News or Amazon.com for each individual surfing the Web. So while Rayford's neighbors tuned to CNN might still be watching the standard news broadcast of actual newsworthy news (or, you know, the CNN equivalent), his feed from the station might be tailored to trigger news alerts for anything aviation-related, or even more specifically for any news related to Air Force One.

Cable TV is nowhere near this sophisticated yet — a childless, 30-year-old subscriber will still see the same advertisements for Pampers and Hoverounds as everyone else, wasting that viewers' time, wasting those advertisers' money, and wasting the cable provider's chance to increase the value of its ads for all concerned. But I would guess that the medium will be moving more in this direction "in the not-so-distant future."

That possibility raises all sorts of concerns about the way in which our privacy might be eroded or abused by data-miners at the cable and Internet companies, but it seems to me that such concerns are just the sort of thing one should be looking for if one is writing a story about the dystopian reign of a Big-Brother Antichrist.

** Having a second phone line for dial-up Internet connection is an accurate portrayal of current technology in 1996, when this book was written, but it's also, again, a not very creative portrayal of the "not-very-distant future" as imagined from 1996.

I've tried to be forgiving of '90s details in these stories that haven't aged well. It is, after all, a difficult business for a writer in the last decade of the 20th century to try to imagine the way people would be living today in the Y.D.A.U. But still it just seems lazy not to have at least tried to imagine how the world might change between the present and the not-so-distant future. I don't think it's too much to ask that writers presenting such a setting either: A) read a few issues of Wired magazine, listen to a bit of Science Friday, and take their best guess at coming developments, or B) exaggerate and extrapolate from current trends to use the fictionalized future as a satiric commentary on the present (as in the "subsidized time" in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest — we'll probably never see an actual "Year of the Depends Adult Undergarment," but the satire of omnipresent corporate sponsorship still rings true).

Part of the problem for LaHaye & Jenkins, of course, is that their worldview is premised on the belief that the world is going to end in the not-so-distant future. Back in 1996, Tim LaHaye didn't think the world would even be here in 2010. Given that, it's no surprise he didn't anticipate wireless broadband and cell phones.

In any case, it's not the future as seen from 1996 that bugs me most in these books, it's the way the authors get their present wrong too. Consider that the first book was written in 1995, which means all of that business about the all-powerful sovereign United Nations was written more or less at the same time as the real world was lamenting that same U.N.'s utter impotence and incompetency in responding to the genocide in Rwanda. That was the backdrop for L&J's delusional rehashing of John Birch Society paranoia cloaked as Darbyite prophecy of a One-World-Government.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 24, 2010

A peace pie and Bible blegging

Next Post

May 26, 2010 The compass now points south

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 is the main structure of Lamentations?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Five acrostic poems Six sermons Twelve genealogies Ten parables