John lashes out at preachers and industrious, money oriented societies, but Book of Revelation is from its very beginning a sales pitch with “divine approval” in the form of letter to foreign churches. Jonathan Kirsh uses many words to discuss the hyposcrisy in this in order to show how universal and captivating the concepts behind John’s otherworldly vision were. They can warp to suit the people’s needs and ideals and thus are almost subject specific and relatable in spite of their abstraction. The theme of selling this cult of the future is continued over millennia as case after case of people living on muliple continents change their lives to accommodate the idea of the world’s end. Often they do so in order to convert people to their cause and understand their prespective. The effort to convert spurs media use and communication across large distances. It motivates some political action and explains or justifies others. It is not without entertainment value and has been a part of pop culure, ranging from medieval simplified illustrated versions to rock and roll to the Left Behind Series. Is the media the message? Here the message seems to make the media. It seems as though the proselytizing tone behind apocalyptical messages amounts as much for its sucess as the merits of its narrative.
When people are sold on the concept of an end of days, they are forced to accept other concepts. In literal cases, this is that there is a god, a savoir, judgment and benefits received through adherence to religious code. In a secular sense, as shown in Colby’s advertisement, there is an acknowledgement of seduction, uncertainty and urgency related to our mortal existence.
Not bad for a limited time offer 2000 years in the making.
Hi Danielle,
Your argument for the importance of proselytizing is an astute reading of Kirsch’s book but also one that goes against claims that apocalypticism is a universal impulse (as you suggest earlier in your paragraph). If it were universal, then it wouldn’t be necessary to proselytize. Kirsch’s analysis shows the extent to which people and groups in power have made a case for the message to gain a more widespread acceptance. One question to ponder: which group has been more dangerous over time—the true believers or the manipulative hypocrites?
I’m reminded of the phrase “preaching to the choir.” When religions seek out converts, they generally play up or invent concepts and rituals that already exist in the culture. Messages that appeal to something that is already part of our nature are the easiest to spread, especially when the part of message is “SELL, SELL, SELL.”
Classical Apocalyptic belief merges the secular concepts of persuasion and urgency and the religious concepts of god, redemption and religious code so that it might spread through people in power.
Is it possible that do to inconsistencies in the bible that true believers and manipulative hypocrites are one and the same?