While researching differing perspectives of the Second Coming in Christian theologies — plural intended — I came across an interesting Mormon site which summarizes various views on Christian eschatology, and I learned — late! — that the typical American evangelical and fundamentalist concept of the Rapture, popularized in such books as the Left Behind series, is a relatively new phenomenon: “1830: The Birth of Modern Eschatology.”

Divergence

Church history is filled with attempts to squash so-called heresies and establish a straight-line path through the chaos.  The First Council of Nicaea, called to order by the Roman Emperor Constantine in AD 325, is only one of the most significant early attempts.  Many have followed (as some preceded.)  Many  paradigm-shaping efforts have been conducted by individuals; for instance, Luther’s efforts, John Wesley’s efforts, C.S. Lewis’ efforts, and countless other efforts were attempts at establishing variant interpretations of the Bible.  Individual Popes have sought to “clarify” paths through the chaos, in their own particular ways, like Augustine did and even 18th C. vision-inspired mystic, Emanuel Swedenborg, did.

Swedenborg is an interesting case.  Reading his revelation of Heaven and Hell —



— is an eye-opener.  I was first inspired to read Swedenborg by Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose essay on the man intrigued me.  But Emerson glossed the man, as if he expected his readers to be quite familiar with Swedenborg.  In truth, Swedenborg’s mysticism is paradoxical.  Heaven and Hell reads almost like a fantasy novel/exposition, written in the first person as the author relates his many angelic visitations and subsequent trips to view both Heaven and Hell in person; yet the man is utterly sincere, as sincere as Montaigne in his essays.  One wants to believe that Swedenborg was entirely mad, yet cannot quite understand how someone so mad could have written with such clarity and cohesion his straightforward accounts of his mystical journeys.  Other essays and books, though I have not read them, extensively express his theology, including even an essay about intelligent life on other planets (in mid- to late 18th Century!.)  If memory serves, he briefly mentions a few times in Heaven and Hell meeting extraterrestrials who had died and also been sent to Heaven.  As in all other things, such references are matter-of-fact rather than sensational.

Swedenborg apparently forsook sensationalism simply because he wanted to relate the facts for easy understanding and also because he did not believe that the facts needed to be embellished.   His role was reporter rather than proselytizer — although I suppose that in his heart, he wanted others to accept his reports.  Adherents of Swedenborgism persist to this day, though a minority, as the online site of the Swedenborg Foundation attests; that foundation has been publishing books for over a 150 years.  Heaven and Hell is charming in its sincerity; and, I’ll confess to admiration for many of the principles that lie behind his theology — including Biblical interpretations you probably will not read anywhere else and which, in all likelihood, would be considered heresy by contemporary evangelists and fundamentalists.

Often in comparing Christian theologies — plural intended, again — historians will relate divergences to existing power struggles, whether within Church hierarchy or within a broader cultural milieu such as Constantine’s failing Rome.  Divergence becomes a symbol of earthly ambition.  I am ambivalent on the subject, since I believe both, that the primary movers and shakers tended to have a deep faith in their particular scriptural interpretations and that whatever their degree of faith, they were usually aware of the attendant earthly power struggles as well.  For many, personal faith was not enough as long as so many others existed outside that faith; thus, bringing heathens into the fold could be a faith-based initiative while also solidifying earthly power to better protect those within the fold.  Swedenborg does not fit this description, and I think that Jesus probably did not fit this description; but many mystics, prophets, and other shepherds did.

Modern Christian Eschatology

So now I am brought back to the web site that inspired this post and the summarizing essay called “1830: The Birth of Modern Eschatology.”  Though not a scholar of Biblical history (thus, unable to confirm or disprove analysis of dates revealed within the Bible), I was intrigued by the split offered by the website.  Apparently, the Bible predicts that 1830 would be an important year, and the Mormon Church believes it is the fulfillment of the Bible’s promise whereas the more popular Darbyism is not.  “Darbyism” is a short term meant to refer to dispensational premillenialism, or “pretrib rapture,” an eschatology which claims that an end-time rapture will precede the Second Coming.  It is the most familiar Christian eschatology, but before 1830, it was virtually non-existent.  Previously, for nearly 1800 years, most Christians believed that the rapture would happen simultaneously with the Second Coming; after 1830, and thanks primarily to John N. Darby, many Christians have come to believe in a rapture which precedes tribulation and a Second Coming that follows tribulation.  John Darby’s revelation occurred after, among other things, a visit to a 15-year-old girl in Scotland who began speaking in tongues and delivering prophetic messages.  At about the same time, give or take, Joseph Smith, Jr., the Mormon prophet, established the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: thus the split, since Joseph Smith’s endeavor and John Darby’s endeavors are meant to symbolize the restoration of the Church predicted for 1830 (by the Bible?) while operating from differing interpretations of Christianity.  (Incidentally, 10 years earlier, at the age of 14, Joseph Smith reported receiving divine visitations.)

The difference between pre-1830’s eschatology and post-1830’s eschatology is extremely important.

Medieval concepts of millenialism, established primarily by Augustine and now termed “amillenialism,” were symbolic and of no definite period:  the present period in which both good and evil coexist on the Earth are the “millennium,” in which the Church and Christianity symbolize the good operating amidst the evil.  When Christ returns, the Rapture follows shortly after his reappearance, and the Redeemed are taken to Heaven while everyone else is sent to Hell.  The Tribulation is also of an indeterminate time period in amillenialism, is also currently occurring, and the punishments of the End are judged to have occurred or to be occurring, throughout this period, often symbolically.  After the final battle with evil, the Earth would become a wasteland, and history would cease.

After 1830, however, with the advent of Darbyism and the most commonly believed form of dispensational premillennialism — “pre-trib” — the “born again” will be rescued just before the Tribulation in the Rapture, thus escaping the torments that will be visited upon the Earth; then, after the Tribulation, Christ returns to establish a 1000-year peaceful reign before defeating Satan in a final battle. [See www.religioustolerance.org/millenni.htm.]

Therefore, pre-1830 Christian eschatology, by stressing the present crisis of good vs evil — the present tribulations — and by not excusing believers from this Tribulation, placed responsibility on the believers for the maintenance of the Good in the present world and enforced the idea that present good works would be rewarded when Jesus returned, during the Rapture. Present good works would also lessen the Tribulations for their fellow humans and for themselves, primarily effected through the Church or at least through Christian faith and Christian works.  After 1830 and the birth of “pre-trib,” most evangelical and fundamentalist believers in Christianity assumed that Earth was prophesied to go to Hell in a handbasket, anyway, whatever they might do; and, because true believers would be rescued in a Rapture before the Tribulation, their primary responsibility was to ensure self-survival by becoming “born-again” while their secondary responsibility was to enable others to become “born again” so that they, too, might escape the Tribulation (rather than merely escape Hell after the Second Coming, as with the amillennialists.)

Need I draw the necessary lines?  “Pre-trib” believers have less reason to improve living conditions on the Earth.  In fact, such millennialists tend to advocate good works only as methods for earning self-survival, or of being rewarded rescue from the Tribulation.  Insofar as a believer can be sure of his own Christianity — define it however he will — he can safely anticipate rescue from Tribulation and a place in Heaven.  But everyone else will receive Earthly punishment before receiving Hellish punishment.  Some critics of pre-trib dispensational millennialism point out the fact that current political pre-trib movements to fight abortion, gay marriage, and other hot-button issues are hypocritical, since Earth is destined to fall into evil — indeed, the Tribulation is punishment for that evil, and any success in removing abortion, etc., from contemporary society would stall the Tribulation or avert it entirely.  But Christian dispensational millennialists might say that fighting these causes will count on their transcripts when Jesus comes to decide who will be rescued from Tribulation and admitted to Heaven — even if they and their Christ are fully aware that Earth will sink into evil, leading up to the Tribulation, no matter what they do in the present.

5GW and Framing

Dan of tdaxp has written an important series of articles outlining Christianity as a 4GW movement: Part I, Part II, Part III.  But the series focuses on early Christianity’s defeat of the Roman Empire.  Anthropologist Marvin Harris, in his summary of Our Kind —

 
— in a chapter detailing “How the Nonkilling Religions Spread,” looks at Christianity (and also at Buddhism and Hinduism) and finds that co-optation of the state by [non-killing] religions also worked in the reverse, co-optation of religion by the state, similar to Dan’s table model in the first of his series on Christianity.  The religion might gain the powers of the state, as when Constantine turned the tables on Diocletian and began persecuting non-Christians while revising the entire Roman government and legal code to support Christianity, and thus spread exponentially; but the state gains loyal citizens who are often willing to rush into battle for that state since earthly tribulations are nothing compared to the otherworldly rewards that will follow dying for a divine cause — thus allowing the spread or survival of that state.  (The “non-killing” in non-killing religions did not apply when killing infidels or dying for a just cause.)  Early Christianity started small. Its only hope in overcoming the power of Rome was co-optation, and if Dan is correct — as he seems to be — then 4GW tactics were essential.

But Christianity’s place in the world is no longer as precarious as when it began.

We might now look at Islam and the persisting medievalism of the Middle East, compare Islam’s struggle against the superior democratic and capitalist (and largely Christian) West, and be unsurprised that Islamic militants are turning to 4GW to combat a conventionally stronger force — as Christianity did against Rome, even if the particular 4GW methods are different now than they were then.  Rome had other opponents, too, who helped the Christian takeover although no formal alliance existed between Christians and the barbarian hordes; Rome’s effort to sap the will of Christians, through persecutions, had been failing for centuries, but various enemies of Rome had begun to sap Rome’s confidence.  [Incidentally, is there yet a correspondence for the West?  I am thinking of China, or China-Russia, or China-Russia-India…]  Many recent commentators have compared modern Islam to medievalist Christianity, since, in part,  both gained superior control over state decisions through autocratic means while severely limiting the powers of individuals within the state.

In Dan tdaxp’s consideration of Caiaphas and Diocletian, the second article in his series, he contemplated the real risk to the prevailing Jewish and Roman status quo posed by the Christian acceptance of all persons as equals, including women and children with men.  Although later, in the third part of the series, Dan contemplates a division of labor between men and women for Christian 4GW, such a division did not, at the time, work exclusively vis-a-vis the promise of Heaven.  That is, if you believed as Jesus believed, you were his brother, his sister, etc.; you did not need to be a male citizen who controlled his subordinates, as the state controlled its subordinates, in order to find salvation.  None were excluded.   This represented a major problem for the paternalistic power structures of ancient Judea and ancient Rome and risked upsetting the entire establishments. If we consider “White Power” — think of white noise or white light; imagine all possible conduits of power at once — then we might say that the Roman and Jewish status quos were highly organized around well-defined conduits of power and any other avenues to power were dangerous to the systems, allowing chaos into well-designed patterns.  Something similar is happening now, since free-market capitalism, liberal education and democracy are empowering people to cross not only national borders at increasing rates, but are also limiting the role of the family within state systems.

Nonetheless, consider the conundrum of 1) individual-empowering early Christianity and 2) the autocratic, dictatorial Christianity that followed, from Constantine through the European Renaissance (and a little beyond.)  Having subverted empire, through 4GW network expansion, Christianity gained empire and utilized empire to dictate very specific channels of power for individual expression while prohibiting other channels of power.  Bible interpretations are, after all, God’s rules for humanity; with empire, those rules could be globalized.  (Protestantism may have offered a break from imperial Christianity; but some states quickly adopted protestant theology.)

But a very strange thing happened well into the European Renaissance.  Deists (and others) in the Second Earth formed a nation in which state control of religion was forbidden: the American Renaissance.  The strangeness of the paradox must be significant, though I will not speculate now on that paradox beyond mentioning the oddness of liberal society flowing eventually from puritan designs.

Or perhaps I will.  Having fled from empire — state-sponsored religion — the new Americans were acutely aware of the dangers of empire, theological as well as secular. When formation of a state finally came to pass, this awareness came into play, and, in a way, American Christians reverted to the 4GW-inspired individual-empowering theology of the Christians who fought Rome — only, this time, it was England.  Imagine early Christians making their lives amidst the Roman empire, keeping to themselves and practicing their faith beyond prying Roman eyes, and holding to that faith no matter what persecutions followed, networking with one another  Then imagine the colonists of America making their own lives away from the prying eyes of the island motherland, developing their own culture, economy, etc.

Except, in America, no co-optation of an existent empire was necessary, since America had ample acreage to form her own.

Many commentators have commented on the necessity of Christianity’s preceding the birth of modern democracy, or at least that Christianity — and Protestantism in particular — eased the birth, among other things.  Though Christianity slipped into empire early in its history, principles of individual salvation and individual duty to God remained, which always returned the focus away from duty toward the state.  Duty toward the state might sometimes be duty toward God, of course; but it was one’s personal duty to God and would lead to a highly personal benefit.  Common law inspired by Christianity formed a solid footing for democracy by prohibiting various chaotic human tendencies while insisting that all follow these laws equally.  (I.e., the Ten Commandments.  And, yes, I know that eventually the royalty of Europe and the Church were better able to find loopholes, mostly by insisting that their dictates were further instructions from God; i.e., via interpretation of the Bible.)  I am no historian, and am sure that others can and have outlined Christianity’s role in the formation of democracy better than I can.

But something else happened in America that threw Christianity out of empire.  We can see to this day how closely U.S. law may follow Christian doctrine — we certainly hear this from various agitators — polls show that America is one of the most “religious” of developed nations, and considering the U.S.’s current role of hyperpower in the world and the large Christian majority in America, one might think that Christianity’s ascension is nearly complete.  Certainly, American millennialists think so and certain leftists fear so.  Unfortunately for the judgment of both parties, the very same Constitutional principles that would protect Christians in America also protect non-Christians — equally well.  The U.S. Constitution is in direct competition with the Holy Bible for delivering dictates to the populace; or, to put it another way, the U.S. Constitution defines conduits of power beyond those promoted by various interpretations of the Holy Bible.  The Constitution can be interpreted variously, just as the Bible can, so different elements rise, then fall, then rise as interpretations vary throughout the years.  But this helps to ensure the generalized equality:  any party may rise to prominence and power.  Early Americans in the general populace did not so often distinguish legal principle from Christian principles, and until relatively recently did not realize the threat posed by the U.S. Constitution to Christian principles.

Of course, these considerations have me wondering if certain of America’s Founders were exceptional 5GWarriors, able to convince various elements to sign off on the Constitution while knowing the danger posed to Christian empire.  “Sign here, for your personal protection!”  We have had 2 1/2 centuries of praise written for the document; to this day, most Americans are convinced they are living in the best of possible worlds, thanks to the Constitution.   What a coup!  Now, I am sure that protection for individual faiths can hardly be derided — thus, it is hardly derided (though it is, in some quarters)  — but I am equally convinced of the genius and wisdom of some of the Framers.  Some Christian agitators will, on the one hand, praise the Framers while on the other hand insist that those Framers were die-hard Christians who intended Christian principles for the Constitution that they wrote.  I, on the third hand, think the Framers would have outlined Christian Theocracy if that had been their intent:  they were not idiots incapable of predicting the future emergence of the secularism which their broad strokes would permit.  Perhaps a few of the Framers predicted a liberal revolution in Christianity, or a mild secularization of Christianity, rather than the overthrow of Christian empire.

5GW and Modern Christianity

Modern Christianity of the fundamentalist variety finds itself threatened by the U.S. Constitution.  There is hope, in some quarters, that the Constitution can be altered to make it less threatening — specifically, that marriage can be enshrined as a secular institution between only one man and one woman, on a federal level — which only goes to show that the present Constitution threatens those Christian principles.  The U.S. Constitution, as currently written, allows gay marriage, just as it has recently allowed lawful sodomy between two men and as it has been interpreted to allow abortion for women.  But unlike early Christians fighting Rome, the threat cannot be removed through 4GW tactics, or at least not 4GW tactics alone.  American society is far too complex, too networked with too many competing proto-4GW entities (and perhaps 5GW entities), for 4GW to work.  Islamist designs may find enough utility in 4GW activity, for now, because Islamists 1) are largely separated and distinct from the West, and 2) are currently too medieval to operate on a 5GW level.  [These may change, however.]  But an American network wishing to assert dominance does not have the option of operating solely in 4GW-mode for achieving victory.

The first 5GW blow from Christianity came circa 1830, with the advent of Darbyism, or dispensational premillennialism.  I hardly believe that John Darby was fully aware of the move he was making, although I do believe that he had some finger-tip feeling of the situation. It is only recently, with the sudden rise in pre-trib eschatology to the forefront of the American psyche, that the effects of Darby’s work are coming to fruition and that 5GW is actually being waged.

To achieve dominance against creeping secularism, the imperial socialism of amillennialism — which had existed since before St. Augustine but had most been promoted by him — had to be abolished. Secularism, particularly capitalist ingenuity, and various mysticisms were gaining in the West as a consequence of freedom for the individual. Amillennialism, which predicted an End-Time that everyone would suffer through before Rapture, encouraged group-think and mutual interdependence:  we were in tribulation already, and only centralized, communal effort, along centrally-dictated lines, could ameliorate our common situation.   Furthermore, promising Christianity as a cure for future Hell — amorphous, distant Hell — was not enough to secure Christianity against encroaching secularism.  In the first place, growing cross-national and cross-cultural networks of commerce (colonialism), as well as America’s western expansion, distanced Anglophonic people and churches from central authority and centralized communities.  In the second place, increased flows of communication [commerce] offered present-day benefits that were in direct competition with promises of future benefit — oh, whenever IT happened — as a motivator.

But individual achievement — that great individualism so often praised in Americans and idolized in British entrepreneurs and celebrities — could serve a dual use.  Individual salvation operates as a strong motivator; and it is the greed of capitalism, but expressed through Christian theology, that distinguishes pre-trib eschatology from amillennialism.   The Elite will rise before Tribulation, saved from that particular fate and rewarded with entrance to Heaven.  Whereas earlier Christian theology also relied on promises of personal salvation, early Christians stressed the importance of community effort to fight against evil, or to make the world a better place before the Second Coming.  Pre-trib thinkers, on the other had, believe the world cannot be made a better place but is instead on a definite course toward perversion and evil, from which they will be saved.

The distinction is important from a 5GW perspective for three reasons.

When dealing with a complex society formed of multiple networks, efforts toward fulfillment of imperial designs cannot be expected to take root if expressed openly.  If the members of that society operate with faith in individual freedoms after a long history of such faith — say, America — they are more likely to expect freedom of interpretation, as well, when approaching theological and philosophical studies: a major strike against a centrally dictated path toward salvation or security.  This may seem paradoxical when considering the widespread acceptance of pre-trib Christian eschatology in America.  But consider who is allowed to judge whether the individual has been “born again” and what that individual must do in this life to achieve such status.  Consider also the extraordinary number of Christian denominations in America who believe in some form of pre-trib eschatology even though they may vary in idiosyncratic ways.  In 5GW, you want individuals making those personal judgments and definitions, because whatever they do must be judged, by them, to come from them:  their choice.  [—to “accept Jesus Christ,” etc.]

Similarly, by breaking up communal activity — forcing the highly individualistic, personal decision for self-preservation before Tribulation (to be “born again”)  — you also forestall the development of potential competing networks of socialist and amillennialist Christianity (or some other form.)  In essence, a 5GW force may influence the target to become either “self-forming”  [into the form/community you already want them to assume] or un-formed and perpetually chaotic [distraction.]   Furthermore, the efforts of those who are not pre-trib, Christian and non-Christian alike, are much less important than the individual effort to become and remain born-again.  This separates pre-trib cultures from the rest of the world, since they no longer need to evaluate present circumstances involving these others, their own personal salvation remaining key to their world view.  (Essentially: rampant individualism and, at worst, rampant solipsism.)  Whatever — and, I mean, whatever — defines personal salvation becomes the most important consideration, so whoever or whatever can promise that or help to achieve that becomes valued and may be given a free rein.  Also, in pre-trib eschatology, the Tribulation and Millennium are not now but some future date; this means that the stick or carrot — whichever way you look at it — is always before the individual to keep him moving.  They do not have to worry so much about their neighbors, but must remain focused on their own salvation.

These two points are a “softening up” of the target society.  The third important 5GW aspect of pre-trib eschatology may be seen as a natural result of the first two or an extension of them.  Because the world is already doomed to evil, pre-trib adherents are often welcoming of signs of that doom.  Depending on the interpretation of various signs of the End-Time delineated in the Bible, state action or even NGO action may be supported which appears to bring about those occurrences.  This would be an extension of the first two.  A natural result of the first two would be something a little different: worldly nihilism, since nothing in the present can matter much, or be valued, when a kind of earthly hell is already inevitable (for all those not “born again.”)

That Mormon Site Again

I have not given as much thought to the Mormon concept of the End, so cannot address that.  [Also, there are several other varieties of Christian eschatology besides the Mormon and the Darby concept.]  But this particular consideration at the end of the page linked above, which inspired this post, struck the 5GW bell for me, although I do not expect the Mormons who designed the site to have made that particular connection:

Is Darbyism a ‘Satanic Deception’?
From www.according2prophecy.org/raptures.html:

Recently, pre-wrath advocate Marvin Rosenthal wrote that the pre-trib rapture was of Satanic origin and unheard of before 1830. “To thwart the Lord’s warning to His children, in 1830,” proclaims Rosenthal, “Satan, the ‘father of lies,’ gave to a fifteen-year-old girl named Margaret McDonald a lengthy vision.”

Dave MacPherson reviews the evidence against Darbyism in his book The Three R’s: Rapture, Revisionism, Robbery-Pretribulation: Rapturism from 1830 to Hal Lindsey.  He considers Margaret MacDonald’s visions of 1830 to be occult influenced. He develops the theme in his books The Incredible Cover-Up and The Great Rapture Hoax.

From a theological perspective, the possibility that Satan started the, er, 5GW is interesting.  But since I do not believe in a Satan, I’ll call the reference metaphorical.  What interests me is the fact that a whisper in Margaret MacDonald’s ear has led us, only 176 years later, to broad acceptance of that message.