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
T.F.: Tweaking Buck’s article

T.F.: Tweaking Buck’s article

Last updated on: November 2, 2015 at 7:31 am by Fred Clark

T.F.: Tweaking Buck’s article 2015-11-02T07:27:33-05:00 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.

(Originally posted June 5, 2009. This got lost in the migration from TypePad to WordPress, recovered and reposted for the archives here thanks to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.)

Tribulation Force, pp. 48-53

So Chloe isn’t sure if she should call Buck and Rayford’s all, like, “Just call him, don’t play games.” So then Chloe’s all, like, “You’re the one who told him I was asleep.” And Rayford’s all, like, “You liiike him,” and Chloe’s all, like, “Maybe, kind of.” And the whole time Buck is, like, at his house, having the same exact conversation with himself.

This scene plays out several more times in this chapter and in those that follow. It’s supposed to be, I guess, the circling dance of just-missed connections between two people meant for each other. I think it’s actually meant to be cute — that their self-inflicted anxiety is meant to be endearing.

I don’t find it endearing. At best, the three of them seem immature. At worst they come across like a blander version of Sam and Diane from Cheers. (The first few seasons of that sitcom, taken as a whole, form a kind of definitive treatise on love, control, vulnerability and selfishness every bit as insightful as something like C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce.)

Since all of this fretting and anxiety stems from phone calls never made or completed, it’s also possible that this is intended as a a kind of fable — a warning to readers of the kind of misery that befalls those who fail to use their telephones as often as they should.

In any case, we get a reprise of this scene every few pages throughout the first half of Tribulation Force and I think these are passages we can skim past. They’re awful, of course, but awful in a pedestrian way. I’m more interested in the more instructively awful passages of this book, such as the continuing discussion between Bruce and Buck of Buck’s pending trip back to New York.

“What do you think Carpathia wants?” Bruce asks Buck, apparently forgetting that what Carpathia wants is supposedly spelled out, in detail, in biblical prophecy and therefore shouldn’t be hard to ascertain.

Buck shook his head. “No idea.”

“Do you trust this Steve Plank?”

“Yeah, I trust him. I worked for Steve for years.”

Yes, Buck and Steve go way back, since way before Steve went to work for the Antichrist and became his brainwashed pawn. So why wouldn’t Buck trust him?

Note the double standard here between Steve and Hattie. “She went to New York on her own,” Bruce said. “It was her choice.” So her innocent decision to take a dream job with a man she thought was simply an idealistic politician makes her a slut, not worth risking oneself to rescue. She deserves to suffer. But Steve remains trustworthy, even though he’s a journalistic sell-out who knew his new boss was somehow involved in the murder of Eric Miller (the reporter tossed from the Staten Island Ferry).

The larger problem, though, is that Bruce and Buck think it’s still possible to trust anyone. What part of tyrannical evil global despot don’t they understand? When dealing with a massive conspiracy, Mr. X reminded Agent Mulder, the first rule is “Trust no one.”

That rule would seem doubly important in this case, considering Nicolae’s demonstrated brainwashing powers. Bruce and Buck aren’t sure what limits, if any, those powers have, so everyone they encounter should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The naivete here is remarkable considering the untold hours the authors seem to have spent fantasizing about being “persecuted” for their faith. Like many American evangelicals, they even seem to imagine that they are persecuted here and now. (Just look at what happened to Miss California — condemned to be first runner-up despite her top-dollar new rack. It’s persecution I tell you!) That same persecution fantasy is, of course, a big part of the appeal of these books for their evangelical readership.

Yet for all of that, the authors don’t seem to have the slightest notion of what real persecution would actually entail, of what it would feel like or how it would work. They can’t seem to understand that persecution requires a certain level of prudent paranoia. They ought to know better. Go into any of those so-called “Christian book stores” that sell the Left Behind books and you’ll find copies of God’s Smuggler and The Hiding Place. Nothing in the LB series comes close to capturing the dreadful reality of those books. All of the guillotines and OWG machinations to come in this series don’t ever quite seem as bad as those descriptions of life behind the Iron Curtain or in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. Their efforts to describe the ultimate most evil regime falls flat because of their astonishing ignorance about evil regimes that have actually existed — or that exist now — causing real suffering for real people*.*

Buck and Bruce haven’t forgotten that Steve was brainwashed. They spend the next two pages rehashing the whole brainwashing scene —

“If Steve had just told me I hadn’t seen it right, maybe I would have thought I was going crazy and had myself committed. But instead he told me I wasn’t even there! Bruce, no one remembers I was there!”

— but they don’t seem to think it has any bearing on whether or not Buck should trust Steve’s offer to arrange another meeting with Nicolae.

“The question now is, what does Carpathia want? Do you think if he talks to you in private he’ll reveal his true self? or threaten you? or let you know he’s aware that you know the truth?”

“For what purpose?”

“To intimidate you. To use you.”

“Maybe. Maybe all he wants to do is try to read me, try to determine whether he succeeded in brainwashing me, too.”

“It’s pretty dangerous business, that’s all I’ve got to say.”

“I hope that’s not all you’ve got to say, Bruce. I was hoping for a little more counsel.”

“I’ll pray about it,” Bruce said. “But right now I don’t know what to tell you.”

And that’s where they leave it. The trap is set and Buck intends to walk into it.

Good luck with that, Bruce tells him.

Back at the Steele household, Rayford and Chloe take another lap around the question of whether or not she should call Buck back and what she should say, etc. This is interesting only in that it begins, “When Rayford returned from running errands that morning …” So it’s just another typical Saturday morning here in the apocalypse.

I will leave it to the reader as an exercise to consider the last few dozens tasks you have performed that might be categorized as “running errands” and to figure out whether any of those might still be relevant, or possible, or in any way routine, in the childless world of the aftermath of the Event and the early stages of the Antichrist’s OWG.

Buck spent the rest of the day tweaking …

That would explain a lot. I’d imagine that his only hope for finishing his big cover story by Monday morning would be to spend the rest of the weekend furiously scribbling in a sleepless, meth-fueled rush to try to make up for all of the work he has yet to do. But of course the ellipsis in the quote above distorts its meaning. What it actually says, instead, is something flatly impossible:

Buck spent the rest of the day tweaking his cover story for Global Weekly on the theories behind the disappearances. He felt good about it, deciding it might be the best work he had ever done.

No. “Tweaking” implies that he is polishing a finished article and the article has most certainly not been finished. The article has scarcely even been begun. We know this. This is not ambiguous. The text allows no wiggle room on this point.

Every moment of Buck’s life for the past two weeks has been accounted for in our story so far. Almost none of that time has been spent on this assignment, even tangentially. He flew from Chicago to New York to London to Germany to New York and back to Chicago. None of that travel was in any way related to this project. He ate cookies with Chloe and dinner with Rayford and fish and chips with Alan Tompkins. We’ve seen him flirt with three women and mistreat a fourth. We’ve seen him — twice — duck into the bathroom to search his soul. We’ve seen him conduct two interviews with the president of Romania, two with pilots, and a few more with whoever happened to walk by his desk there in the newsmagazine’s office. And while we’ve also seen him place too many phone calls to keep count of, none of those calls involved any interviews or even cursory research for his inexplicably finished and allegedly awesome cover story.

He simply never wrote it. This never happened.

But be that as it may, what does the article say?

It included everything from the tabloidlike attack by Hitler’s ghost, UFOs, and aliens, to the belief that this was some sort of cosmic evolutionary cleansing, a survival-of-the-fittest adjustment in the world’s population.

It’s not clear from that description whether that false range (“everything from … to”) covers Hitler’s ghost, UFOs and aliens as discreet theories or if these are meant as a single theory — Hitler’s ghost somehow working in concert with the UFOs as well as aliens. Either way, the implication is that a large portion of the population is willing to grasp at ridiculous and implausible explanations for the disappearances. That’s not fair. It wouldn’t even be fair if Buck had bothered to conduct a representative sample of interviews to confirm that such beliefs were, in fact, widely held.

It’s not fair because UFOs and/or aliens are an obvious and eminently reasonable hypothesis for this unprecedented phenomenon. This was the ultimate Black Swan event — all bets are off and no theory, no matter how implausible, can be dismissed out of hand. Two billion people vanished. That massive and astonishing Event requires a proportionately massive and astonishing explanation. Its scope, suddenness and precision seems to entail either outright miracle or the application of technology advanced beyond our wildest imagining. That leaves God (or the gods) and space aliens as our prime suspects. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from divine intervention.

We’re not shown, or even told, what Buck had to say about these UFO/aliens theories in his article. It seems likely that article simply repeats the assumption we find here — that the idea is dismissed out of hand as absurd and not worth exploring. Buck believes this idea is A) false and B) widely held. His responsibility as a journalist, then, is to refute it — to marshal the evidence and present the facts of the matter even when, or especially when, those facts are contrary to the presupposed beliefs of his readers. His article ought to include the voices of experts from NASA and SETI and whatever data or evidence they could provide. But none of that is in there.

(For my money, the space-aliens theory is still in play. What we’ve learned so far is that these aliens have the technology to teleport or disintegrate human bodies instantaneously from a remote location. We’ve also learned that these aliens have the power to brainwash humans and that their devious scheme — whatever it is — involves some of them posing here among us as, say, a Romanian politician, or as a small-town pastor who produces video tapes to throw the humans off their track.)

The “cosmic evolutionary cleansing” theory doesn’t begin to make sense. It sounds like what it is — some kind of clumsy evangelical mockery of evolution by authors who don’t have the slightest idea what it is they’re trying to mock. This is why it’s sad, on their own terms, that the authors never bothered to show us Buck working on this article. They could have shown us his interview with their parody of an evolutionist, rigging the conversation so that the condescending buffoon was rendered spluttering and speechless by Buck’s zinging questions about the intelligent design of the banana or the cruciform shape of our model of laminin proteins. Jack Chick wrote this scene dozens of times, always providing just the dose of self-affirming ignorance that this series was meant to provide. But such a scene was apparently too much work for LaHaye and Jenkins who rushed to produce their book using the same method Buck seems to have used to produce his instant, no-research, no-interviews article.

Buck’s article apparently also neglects to explore, or even to mention, the alleged official explanation for the disappearances — the Rosenzweig/Carpathia hypothesis that two billion people disappeared due to:

Some confluence of electromagnetism in the atmosphere, combined with as yet unknown or unexplained atomic ionization from the nuclear power and weaponry throughout the world, could have been ignited or triggered — perhaps by a natural cause like lightning, or even by an intelligent life-form that discovered this possibility before we did — and caused this instant action throughout the world.

Since he was first assigned an article on “the theories behind the disappearances,” Buck has spent many hours with both Rosenzweig and Carpathia, yet he’s never bothered to talk to them about their pre-eminent theory. He’s never asked them about it. He’s never explored any of their alleged evidence, or asked for a clearer explanation of what “some confluence of electromagnetism” is supposed to mean, or asked even the obvious question of why a politician and a botanist should be regarded as experts on “unexplained atomic ionization.”

As vague and inscrutable as that theory is, it’s also old news by now, having become the accepted wisdom around the globe. People running errands on a Saturday morning make their small talk:

“Hey, Bill. How’s the wife?”

“Gone, I’m afraid. You know, the unexplained atomic ionization.”

“Oh, I’m sorry to hear that.”

“Yeah. Your kids too, I suppose?”

“Yeah, both gone. Confluence of electromagnetism took ’em along with the rest. That’s why I’m here at the bank, actually. Have to put a stop on those preschool tuition checks …”

In addition to being a lazy and incurious as a reporter, though, it turns out that Buck is also a practitioner of the worst form of journalism — adopting a posture of neutral objectivity in which he refuses to show any bias in favor of facts over non-facts.

In the middle of the piece, Buck had included what he believed was the truth, of course, but he did not editorialize. It was, as usual, a third-person, straight news-analysis article [sic]. No one but his new friends would know that he agreed with the airline pilot and the pastor and several others he interviewed — that the disappearances had been a result of Christ’s rapture of his church.

This is nonsensical on so many levels.

Let’s imagine that instead of the cause of the disappearances, Buck Williams had been assigned to write about the cause of a suspicious warehouse fire. Some people theorized that the fire was due to a lightning strike, or to faulty electrical wiring, or to unattended cooking materials. The fire occurred on a cloudless night, the power was shut off and the warehouse did not have a kitchen, but Buck decides not to mention any of that because he doesn’t want to “editorialize.” He wants to make sure that his “straight news-analysis article” doesn’t include any biasing assessment of whether or not any given theory is actually true. So Buck includes all the different theories, giving each equal weight, leaving out only the official ruling from the fire marshal (too prejudicial, that, too biasing). Only Buck’s closest confidants would know that he agreed with the pastor and the dozens of members from the church across the street from the warehouse who theorized that the fire was arson. So as to avoid any hint of editorializing and bias, he doesn’t mention that dozens of members of this church witnessed a man pouring gasoline over the walls of the warehouse and tossing flaming oil-soaked rags to ignite the blaze before fleeing in a white Econoliner van with license plate number KLB 431. One parishioner videotaped the arson and showed Buck the tape, but he doesn’t mention this either as he doesn’t find it newsworthy.

That is, essentially, what Buck is doing here with his article on the disappearances. He doesn’t simply have an opinion, he has proof. He’s got Billings’ videotape and all of Bruce’s charts and prophecies. He can report not just what happened and why, but what is going to happen next and then what’s going to happen after that.

Yet out of some warped notion of journalistic objectivity, he withholds these facts from his readers, refusing to allow them to see the evidence he has discovered. He thus presents facts as though they were merely opinions and wild fantasies as though they were the equivalent of facts. And then he leans back and congratulates himself, “deciding it might be the best work he had ever done.”

All of that might have worked if it had been intended as a parody of Fox News or a lamentation over the wretched state of contemporary journalism, but Jenkins seems utterly sincere. He really seems to think that this refusal to let facts outweigh opinions is somehow the hallmark of quality reporting.

What it actually demonstrates is that Buck Williams is a Very Bad journalist. And also something of a Very Bad person.

Left Behind

Previous Post

November 1, 2015

L.B.: Two swell guys

Next Post

November 2, 2015 T.F.: Unlikable

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

Who interpreted the "writing on the wall" for King Belshazzar?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ezekiel Jeremiah Daniel Isaiah