Over at the Sojourners’ Culture Watch blog, Gareth Higgins has an excellent post on the discourse that’s still swirling around certain segments of the evangelical Right that wants to paint President Obama as the Antichrist – and, more importantly, the unwillingness of the Right’s spokespeople to stand up to their own compatriots and vociferously challenge this characterization:
The sum: I don’t know what Glenn Beck actually believes about the book of Revelation (for what it’s worth, I happen to think it’s an amazing book of metaphorical prose offering comfort to people being persecuted and naming the metaphysical core of the universe: that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it, rather than a dimestore almanac of future events), but he’s certainly happy not to challenge his listeners when they suggest that President Obama is in league with Satan. I know many of us feel like we say this every day: We need a better conversation in this country.
Absolutely. I’d also add that the things Beck’s caller sees as signs that Obama is the Antichrist – raising taxes on the rich, exercising oversight over troubled industries, working toward a more cooperative foreign policy – are utterly banal, and point to a recurring problem in the discourse of the Christian Right. When you’re doing everything in your power to cultivate a Manichaean worldview among your audience, they’ll be inclined to see the most small and normal things – like differences in opinion on tax policy, for example – as the surface elements of a deep and conspiratorial struggle between Good and Evil. If everything is viewed in the light of a dispensational eschatology, a battle between the divine conspiracy and the demonic conspiracy, then everything one disagrees with is a sign of the demonic conspiracy – it can be no other way. A charismatic figure who wants to enact progressive policies can’t just be someone with different opinions; he must be the Antichrist.
This idea severely poisons our politics, which rests on the idea that people with just and good intentions can and will disagree on public policy matters – in fact, the system is designed for them to disagree and come to reasonable compromises. If every matter of public policy is another battleground in the ultimate war between Good and Evil, then compromise anywhere, on any matter, is sin. This not only leads to people thinking along the lines of the Glenn Beck caller described by Mr. Higgins, but also to things like the decline of the moderate wing of the Republican Party (as evidenced by the recent departure of Arlen Specter from that caucus in the face of a radical right-wing primary challenge) – which leads to an inability to get things done in the halls of our state and federal legislatures. If politicians can’t compromise for fear of getting booted by their own party for being a [D/R]INO*, then they can’t be effective legislators – because our entire system is built on compromise.
Anyway, Mr. Higgins’s whole post is well worth the read. Take a look and join in the conversation – either on the Sojourners blog or over here.
* [Democrat or Republican] In Name Only
Let’s not forget that the word “antichrist” doesn’t appear anywhere in Revelation, nor does it ever denote some “son of Satan” figure who sets out to destroy the world. The word “antichrist” appears three times in the entire Bible – in 1 and 2 John – as a label for a teacher gone astray. They were teaching a doctrine that the writer of 1 and 2 John considered to be false teaching: “against” Christ, or antichrist.
Also, you’ll never see the word with a capital “A,” as if pointing out a specific person.
Just thought this would be good to add to the conversation.
That’s a great point… though there’s also the “man of sin” in Thessalonians, tied by many theologians to the antichrist of the Johannine epistles. Even still, to look at those things outside of their context, a persecuted people in first-century CE Roman culture, is incredibly problematic. To tie the word “antichrist” to a single contemporary figure who’s supposed to lead the great eschatological battle, as you rightly point out, is incredibly irresponsible.
It’s also very important for us to remember that premillennial dispensationalism – the eschatology of things like the Left Behind novels – is a relatively new development in Christian theology. The idea of the Antichrist has a longer history – going back to the second century CE – but the construct they’ve built around this idea of the Antichrist is only as old as Darby and the mid-1800s.
Great comment… thanks for participating!
[...] Blog About Us Issues Take Action Sign Up Press Store Donate « Gareth Higgins: Eschatology or Bigotry? [...]