Apocalypse is Not a Dirty Word

I HAVE WORKED WITH progressive Christians for a very long time, and I’ve noticed that too much talk about heaven seems to embarrass them.

Many people I’ve encountered have been eager to talk about the gospel of social justice but much less enthusiastic talking about eschatology. They seemed happy, for example, to talk about the feeding of the 5,000, but not so much about the Book of Revelation or the apocalypse.

As a Native American I find this apparent disconnect in the theological mindset of many of my colleagues to be worth some deep reflection. After all, the story of the feeding of the 5,000 and the vision of an apocalypse are in the same book. Why the willingness to talk about one but not the other, especially since Jesus himself saw them as interconnected?

I believe the reason lies more in politics than prophecy. The willingness to engage some aspects of Christian theology while being reticent to engage others is part of the political landscape of the postmodern American church. On both the progressive/liberal side of the church and the traditional/conservative side, there is an understanding about theological turf. Many Christians who identify as living on the progressive side seem to almost intuitively assume that topics such as heaven, hell, judgment, and apocalypse are reserved for fundamentalist Christians. They leave eschatological explanations and interpretations to the Right, partially in fear of guilt by association. At best, they are embarrassed by the topics and, at worst, insulted.

David Crary, in an April 2019 Associated Press article headlined “Poll: Church membership plummets over last 20 years,” discussed the perceived ownership of certain theological issues by the Right. Crary noted that church membership among Democrats fell from 71 percent to 48 percent over the past two decades, compared to a smaller decrease from 77 percent to 69 percent among Republicans. Crary quoted Notre Dame political science professor David Campbell, who attributed the partisan divide to “the allergic reaction many Americans have to the mixture of religion and conservative politics.” Increasingly, Campbell said, “Americans associate religion with the Republican Party—and if they are not Republicans themselves, they turn away from religion.”

Is this part of the reason many progressive Christians seem to have abandoned eschatology to the Right? The more that conservatives use this ground unopposed to announce Armageddon, the more the public at large associates religion with extremism. The more Christianity is associated with hellfire and brimstone, the less likely that moderate to progressive people will take it seriously.

We are living in a time when fear of tomorrow is the air many people breathe. I would argue that the longstanding, tacit retreat from eschatology on the part of progressive Christians is having a deep and direct impact on the mind of the American public.

It is time to take back eschatology. It is time for social-justice Christians to find a new way to talk about subjects such as heaven and hell. It is time to speak about the future in clear eschatological terms, because the fear of that future either drives people out of the church altogether—or into the bunker of fundamentalist religion.

‘Survivalist Christianity’

So how do progressive Christians get back on the field of eschatology when that turf is so dominated by the Right? We move the field.

I am only speaking for myself, but as a Native American I would say from our historical and cultural experience there are two critical things to remember. First, when you are outnumbered, you cannot afford to fight on ground your opponent has chosen for you. Second, you cannot allow your opponent to dictate the rules. Move to new ground. Do the unexpected. Change the rules.

For too long fundamentalist Christians have held the high ground of eschatology because they have controlled too much of the narrative. In this postmodern consumer culture, we would say they have “branded” eschatology. They frame eschatology as a legal process. Human beings are in a cosmic courtroom. They are guilty of crimes worthy of the death penalty. Some will surely be condemned. They frame eschatology as a military campaign. Spiritual warfare is growing all around us. People are divided into winners and losers. There will be casualties—many casualties. They frame it as the only hope for the chosen few. The test for salvation begins. The path to escape is narrow. Not everyone will find it.

Survivalist Christianity: This is the field the Right occupies. But is it the only field in town? Have they framed the debate once and for all? Or can we find a very different approach and, by so doing, move the field of eschatology to a new location?

Native America offers two answers that can radically alter the shape and content of the theological debate over eschatology:

1) Open the narrative of eschatology up to more than one source. Let other traditions speak.

2) Open the interpretation of eschatology up to more than one experience. Let other histories speak.

Let other traditions speak

First, we need to invite people to listen to what eschatology sounds like when described by more than one voice. For too long the conversation has been one-dimensional. There has been one source, the Bible, and one voice, the Right. What if there were many sources and many voices?

For example, we have benefited a great deal from the eschatological perspectives of the Hebrew covenant, but very little from other covenants. While the reliance on the Hebrew covenant as our primary source is integral to our faith, we also need to consider the sources of understanding available to us through many ancient narratives. The wisdom of these other sources is essential to a complete understanding of any theological subject, including eschatology.

Many years ago, I began speaking about the Native covenant. The story of my ancestors in their spiritual evolution is as profound and enlightening as that of any other people on earth. I described how the Creator made a covenant with my people that is extraordinarily similar to the narrative of ancient Israel. Like Israel, Native people remember a time of exodus, a finding of the promised land, and an eternal covenant that made us call ourselves The People, the ones chosen to live here. I also talked about how the Jesus story speaks to and emerges from our ancient covenant, but with a very different accent and meaning.

Heaven sounds different when described by a Navajo or a Lakota. Judgment sounds different when spoken by a culture without original sin. The visions of John of Patmos are different from those of Black Elk. Opening the discussion to hear what other ancient covenants have to say will dramatically change the landscape of the conversation. It will allow eschatology to be redefined. It will broaden the focus from a narrow band of interpretations. It will give us all, whatever our politics, a chance to hear what the future sounds like when articulated by a global experience, with a network of ancient sources, rather than what it sounds like as a political party with a single agenda.

Let other histories speak

Second, we need to listen to the testimony of people who have already experienced the end of the world and lived to tell about it. Ask the Pequot. Ask the Narragansett. Ask the Shawnee and the Oneida. Ask any of those who walked the Trail of Tears. Ask the silent ones lying in the snow at Wounded Knee.

We need to help people understand that eschatology is not some silly topic for conspiracy theorists or religious fanatics. It is an actual experience. It is a process many people have survived. The conquest and genocide of the Americas is only one example. My ancestors experienced the end of the world. They watched prophecies be fulfilled. They saw evil forces arise. They witnessed war and the rumor of war. In the end, they saw an entire way of life, a reality that had existed for eons, collapse all around them. So great was the lament that even the stars would no longer shine. If you want to know what Armageddon feels like, ask Native America. We know.

And we are not alone. Around the world there are many people for whom eschatology is not a polite coffee hour conversation, but a living memory of the day when reality changed forever. Ask Rwanda. Ask Armenia. Ask the Rohingya.

Eschatology needs to be grounded in human experience, not in imaginary speculation. When progressive Christians abandon the field of eschatology to the Right, it forces people who have lived through the apocalypse to remain silent. It allows their story to be ignored. We need to stop treating eschatology as though it were a purely theoretical issue and begin to see it in the same way we see the gospel of social action. Eschatology is as much about experience as expectation.

Ultimately, I don’t know if we will continue to lose more progressive Christians from the ranks of organized religion. I don’t know if eschatology will mostly remain the private domain of fundamentalism. But I do know that my ancestors made a sacred covenant with the Creator. I know they survived a cataclysm because they had faith in their own eschatology.

I also know that there are others like them. Others we have not heard or understood. In the end, I know it is time for open-minded Christians of all walks of life to get back on the field, to open up the subject of eschatology as far as it can go, and to let the people speak who have experienced eschatology in all of its myriad dimensions, as a reality, not as a party line.