In spite of all I read about the idea of a New Jerusalem and the strong understanding of how apocalyptic belief affects modern politics granted by my reform Jewish background, I expected a modern fundamentalist writing like “Glorious Appearing” to be an attack on cities and large groups of people gathering in urban spaces. I owe this perhaps to examining contemporary pieces like “The Watchmen,” set in an mostly urban spaces and eager to toy with its landscape. The man-made apocalypse seems to come on some level because cities exist and can be destroyed. Partial apocalypses seem to exclusively feature broken cities. If I were to in my life experience a period of personal apocalypse, it would be in a urban space. I often imagined an anti-urban sentiment from religious rural outsiders, satired in this Onion video found at http://www.theonion.com/video/country-music-stars-challenge-alqaeda-with-patriot,14172/ where country musicians hint at bombing New York City in order to “bring across judgement day.”

This was supported on some level in the early chapters of Glorious Appearing, where by the heroes’ actions global connections to New Babylon crashed and “From New York, Brussels, London, Buenos Aires, the Persian Gulf, Tokyo, Beijing, Toronto, Moscow and other major cities came the laments of those in power.” But the Petra complex, praised on some level is a city. (Israel has a lot of urban space for a small country). The sense of closeness and self-sufficientness found in the Judgement Day also call image of a city. New Jerusalem is a city like “New Babylon.”

I believe people’s identification with a city can make them subject to dualistic thing. Cities provide order and yet also anxiety and paranoia. There is room for the defense of “good cities” in the Fundamentalist Mindset.

All and all, I didn’t feel that urban living was mentioned as much or attacked by the likes of LaHaye or Jenkins.