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
NRA: Papa is still preaching (it gets worse)

NRA: Papa is still preaching (it gets worse)

Last updated on: February 17, 2015 at 8:39 pm by Fred Clark

NRA: Papa is still preaching (it gets worse) 2015-02-17T20:39:51-05:00 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.

Nicolae: The Rise of Antichrist; pp. 293-299

Hattie Durham is 0-for-2 when it comes to long-term relationships. Her second attempt has been pretty much a disaster, with the man she took to be charismatic and charming turning out to be dull, distant and controlling. And also, it turns out, the Antichrist. Finding out that her second recent boyfriend is the Beast from the Abyss, the apotheosis of evil, and a tyrannical dictator bent on world destruction and wanton slaughter has been a disappointment.

Dating the Antichrist is almost as bad as her previous relationship, with Rayford Steele — another dull, distant, control-freak who turned out to be into some really weird emotional kink. (“My desires are … unconventional,” he had explained, early on. “We must never touch. …”) And at least the Antichrist wasn’t married.

Hattie is still young, of course, so we could imagine that there’s still plenty of time for her to find happiness. But, cruelly, it turns out there isn’t plenty of time for anyone in these books. The world is coming to an end about five years from now.

Even more cruel, it seems Hattie is doomed to spend those five remaining years bouncing back and forth between the two awful men who tag-teamed to ruin her 20s. She’s finally mustered the courage to flee Nicolae Carpathia, yet now she finds herself back on an airplane, once against being lectured by Rayford Steele.

Note: Let me warn you that the remainder of this post includes some really disturbing content. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins use Rayford Steele like a lens here to focus and concentrate their misogyny into a single, searing, blinding point. And for the rest of this chapter they play with Rayford and Hattie the way a cruel child might play with a magnifying glass and an anthill. It’s pretty creepy stuff.

(Seriously, we’re headed here toward a discussion of LaHaye and Jenkins’ philosophy of rape, and it’s quite likely that this is something you just don’t want or need to subject yourself to reading about. I kind of wish I hadn’t subjected myself to reading this, and even now I’m tempted to just ditch the whole chapter and post more capybara videos because this crap is really horrifically unsettling and evil and I don’t want anyone to feel blindsided when they get to the appalling end of this post.)

“Why do you want to make me feel guilty for considering an abortion?” Hattie Durham asks.

“I can’t make you feel guilty,” Rayford said. But he was still going to give it his best shot. She was a woman and he was a man, and to Rayford, that meant it was his moral duty to try to make her feel guilty — guilty for considering an abortion, guilty for having slept with Nicolae, guilty for having been willing to sleep with him, guilty in general for being a woman.

But Rayford fears this may be an impossible task. Hattie is not a Real, True Christian. He thus assumes that she is therefore devoid of conscience:

He had to remind himself that she was not a believer. She would not be thinking about the good of anyone but herself. Why should she?

Projection is the closest that Rayford can ever come to empathy. He recognizes that, before his conversion, he was a remorseless, self-absorbed, narcissistic monster incapable of considering anyone other than himself. He thus deduces that everyone else who has not yet been converted is the same now as he was then.

Among the many flaws in this deduction is Rayford’s mistaken assumption that he became anything other than a remorseless, self-absorbed, narcissistic monster at any point after his conversion.

He begins the next phase of his attempt to induce guilt by trying to convince Hattie to see understand why he considers abortion even worse than the Antichrist:

“Hattie, just humor me for a moment and assume that that pregnancy, that ‘it’ you’re carrying, is already a child. It’s your child. Perhaps you don’t like its father. Perhaps you’d hate to see what kind of a person its father might produce. But that baby is your blood relative too. You already have maternal feelings, or you wouldn’t be in such turmoil about this. My question is, who’s looking out for that child’s best interest?”

You can’t argue with that. Rayford asks Hattie to assume his conclusion as her premise, and you literally cannot argue with that. (This begs the question, again, of what we are to call question-begging now that “begs the question” is used mainly to mean “raises the question.”)

But after he helpfully outlines the circle of his basic argument, Rayford’s speech goes badly off track:

“Let’s say a wrong has been done. Let’s say it was immoral for you to live with Nicolae Carpathia outside of marriage. Let’s say this pregnancy, this child, was produced from an immoral union. Let’s go farther. Let’s say that those people are right who consider Nicolae Carpathia the Antichrist. I’ll even buy the argument that perhaps you regret the idea of having a child at all and would not be the best mother for it.”

Rayford doesn’t seem to understand how stipulation works. When we say, “Let’s say …” the point is usually to make a conditional concession of the other person’s point for the sake of argument. Rayford gets this backwards. He invites Hattie, for the sake of argument, to concede all of his assertions: “Let’s say I’m right about everything. Let’s go farther. Let’s also agree that you are wrong about everything. Let’s just stipulate for the sake of argument that you are unfit for motherhood — that you are to motherhood the equivalent of what the Antichrist is to governance. Let’s just start by agreeing that you are a wanton, immoral hussy who was born with your legs apart and will be buried in a Y-shaped coffin. …”

Again, you can’t argue with that because, again, it’s not an argument. It’s a bundle of assertions mixed with insults.

So far so bad — but this is Left Behind, so of course it’s going to get even worse. And it does.

How much worse could it possibly get? How about LaHaye and Jenkins and Steele sharing their philosophy of rape?

“Let’s say it was immoral for you to live with Nicolae Carpathia outside of marriage. Let’s say this pregnancy, this child, was produced from an immoral union. Let’s go farther. Let’s say that those people are right who consider Nicolae Carpathia the Antichrist. I’ll even buy the argument that perhaps you regret the idea of having a child at all and would not be the best mother for it. I don’t think you can shirk responsibility for it the way a rape or incest victim might be justified in doing.

“But even in those cases, the solution isn’t to kill the innocent party, is it? Something is wrong, really wrong, and so people defend their right to choose. What they choose, of course, is not just the end of a pregnancy, not just an abortion, it’s the death of a person. But which person? One of the people who made a mistake? One of the people who committed a rape or incest? Or one of the people who got pregnant out of wedlock? No, the solution is always to kill the most innocent party of all.”

There you have it. For Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins and the good Christian men of Tyndale Press, rape is something “committed” by two people. There’s the rapist and the co-rapist.

This seems to be the first and only place where LaHaye and Jenkins ever regard women as fully equal to men. Women are not fully equal in marriage, in the church, or in society — but they are, to the authors, equally culpable for rape. In any rape, they say, the woman is “one of the people who committed a rape.” She is “one of the people who made a mistake.”

I do not posses the capability, the time or the space to explore here all the ways that this is monstrously wrong. Whole books could be, and have been, written to shred and dismantle the misogynistic ideology crystallized here in this bit of rape-talk from LaHaye and Jenkins. I cannot rewrite all of those books here in response to this scene.

But what I can do is remind you that this isn’t simply one appalling aberration on page 296 of the third book in this series. This is an inescapable ideology that pervades every page and paragraph of these books.

Jerry Jenkins is, for the most part, terrible at world-building and continuity. His fictional world contradicts itself repeatedly. He introduces huge changes and then forgets about them just a few pages later. But on this one point he is reliably, relentlessly consistent. The misogyny in this chapter — the contempt and disgust for women displayed here — permeates the entirety of this story and of the theology that drives it. Sometimes it’s the background, sometimes, as here, it’s in the foreground. But it is always present in these books. It is always being assumed and it is always being taught.

Left Behind

Previous Post

February 17, 2015

It's not hypocrisy, it's a contemptuous distrust

Next Post

February 18, 2015 Two cheers for CT's take on multi-level marketing

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 did Pharaoh’s daughter find floating in the river?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Baby Moses A scroll A fish A golden idol