Popalyptic V: Apocalypse Now

Microsoft Word on my computer uses the Encarta dictionary. When asked to define apocalypse, it gives two definitions:
1. the destruction or devastation of something, or an instance of this
2. a revelation made concerning the future
The thesaurus goes on to list words such as disaster, catastrophe, day of reckoning, Judgment Day, end of the world, and destruction. Living in America at this time, I do not find this definition very surprising, though it is more than a little strange when compared to the historic usage of the word that we talked about two posts ago.

I believe a fundamental shift has occurred in how apocalypse is understood and defined in modern-day America. Consequently all apocalyptic literature is often read in a very different way than originally intended, depending upon the reader. The reader’s socio-economic standing, religion, era, and location all make a drastic difference as to how they will read and understand (or not understand) apocalyptic literature. Gadamer said “A person who is trying to understand a text is always projecting.” What is projected onto an apocalypse depends upon the reader. Or, to borrow from post II; when the soup is unveiled, each of us will try to add his or her own seasoning upon it. Some of us will change the taste a lot, while others will change the entire meal. Reading ancient apocalyptic literature across time, continents, and cultures causes us to read it entirely differently than how it was intended. Meanwhile, we begin to change it or even to create our own new stories.

One thesis I would throw out with these posts is that we are beginning to create our own modern American apocalyptic literature, and it is far different from what the ancients wrote, as are the reasons behind the writing. Past apocalypses were by oppressed peoples, with the intention of bringing hope and reminding the powerless that those who find comfort in thier oppresive ways now will find pain, suffering and judgement in the future. This is hard to deal with in a nation that is more often than not the cause of suffering and oppression. So we have simply redefined the word and begun coming up with our own versions.

I suppose a second thesis for these posts, then, is that we have redefined apocalypse in a way, to borrow from liberation theologians, that comforts the comfortable and forgets the afflicted. That means it forgets all about oppression and focuses on destruction and future-telling. Like the Israelites when they began following false prophets, we want to know the future, specifically the future that tells us how blessed we will be because God loves us so. The fact that we ignore what he asks us to do is inconsequential. How does this work? Like this: my third thesis is that we do this by eliminating God and the bible from our eschatology. Sometimes we do this literally, sometimes both make an appearance, but I believe they are more often than not forgotten. I think, for instance, of the man at church who told me how he looks forward to Heaven, where he will ride a Harley around all day, every day. Hmm. So (thesis four), instead of listening to the Bible or believing in God's power within our world, we are the ones who are in control of the future in modern American apocalyptic literature.

I will give some examples and add some meat to this in the next post(s). For now, I ask if there are any questions, clarifying thoughts, or contradictory opinions? Or even better, is there another thesis you would add to these? Please let me know!

Peace,

Matt