Strozier’s breakdown of Revelation allows for us to simply soak in the main points of John’s visions without drowning in the language and warnings for morality, making it a lot easier to understand and empathize with fundamentalists, like Colby said. However, I have to say that I find myself disagreeing with some of his analysis of Revelation and also some of what he says about some of his seals of fundamentalism, particularly what he says of the letters and what he also says on the seal of revenge.

Strozier states that preachers gain their legitimacy by demonstrating his knowledge o Revelation and he almost loses his legitimacy with me on his third page while discussing the letters to the churches. He describes the tone as “scolding and angry” and says that the letters tell Christians to brace themselves for suffering while demanding they stop their sinful ways. This is true, it’s what the letters are about, but he’s conveniently leaving out the fact that the beginning of the letters to Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea start out with praises for what they’ve done right towards him. He leaves out that the other two letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia are in fact reassurances that they will be rewarded, Smyrna with mercy from the second death because of its persecuted status and Philadelphia with Jesus’ safety for keeping the commandments. The point of the letters is not just to scold the sinners that need to repent but to also encourage the good behavior that has kept the faith. Strozier leaves these parts out and zooms in on only the tone of latter halves of letters and also generalizes to whom the threat of tribulation is for. Right after the mention of Jezebel in the letter to Thyatira is reassurance for those who did not fall for her evil ways, that they would only need to wait for him and when the time came, they would inherit the earth, not get punished. In neglecting to mention these, Strozier’s proving one of his arguments about fundamentalists even if he isn’t one himself; that the total suffering of sinners is important to a believer’s redemption and I would argue that it proves to be pivotal and almost the most important tenet to some fundamental mindsets.

In bringing up the idea of sinners suffering, the biggest related section besides the one on violence was the one on revenge. Word choice is very important, especially in a discussion such as this one and using ‘revenge’ to describe what happens to nonbelievers sounds almost too petty. Why Strozier labels it as such surprises me. The God presented in Revelation is much the God of Genesis, out to set things right among the humans and if that means getting rid of everybody but Noah once again, he’ll do it and make sure it’s permanent by creating New Jersusalem. Strozier proposes that “all of the violence that constitutes the biblical genocide of Revelation is purposeful and aimed at those who have fallen away from the path of righteousness,” and he’s absolutely right in the statement but how, then, does it sound like revenge? Revenge is not corrective, revenge is something mixed with justice and retribution and doesn’t feel right in this context. I propose the use of punishment because that’s what it is when children do something wrong and parents have to correct them. No one’s mother exacted revenge on them when they broke the vase or hit their sibling or did anything else that garnered a time-out or some other type of action; they were punished for behind bad. So in this way is the entirety of Revelation. Oh, John might be a very angry angry prophet about being stuck on Patmos and he wants to get back at the Whore, that ridiculous city of Rome, but with God as the agent of the violence in Revelation, revenge isn’t in the cards anymore. Not only is that something evidenced in the holy book as a whole, but it also doesn’t go with Revelation. Each one of the letters serves as a warning to the people, simultaneously praising and scolding as I stated earlier, and the fact that it is actually a warning and not a simple laying down of judgment just furthers that this is not about revenge. “Be good or else.” A statement like that isn’t vengeful, isn’t about instant death and a fiery lake. It allows the chance for redemption, for the sinners to find the error of their ways, which is very much like the Christ in the second part of the Bible, and then calls for punishment of those who don’t, which is very much like the God of the Old Testament.

Besides that, I found his points on kairotic time to be on par with what we said in class, especially Albert’s post on it before. The idea of time being destroyed during an apocalypse seemed pretty out there to me at first but then I came to realize that it was quite true. All of Revelation basically runs on kairotic time, on each event happening in relation to the next, and when the New Jerusalem is supposed to come about, there is no more time, just eternity with God. Time is destroyed and almost as importantly, free will is as well. Strozier notes in ‘Survivalism’ that the saved chosen elect, whoever, are faced with evil forces but that “God intervenes and saves them”, which he hasn’t done before. The saved become eternal after this, their humanity thrown off in favor of joyful eternity with God with no agency, and I just think that’s something interesting to note. The final thoughts on redemption ended in a way that I thought was also interesting. Strozier states that Revelation is “dangerous” and “ugly,” that it needs to have its violence contained on the page, something that the Church had tried to do by not canonizing it. Breaking out is exactly what Revelation managed to do at the end of it all and it’s still inspiring others today, possibly even more so than before.

P.S And in the spirit of our discussion that involved homoeroticism in Glorious Appearing, Strozier helpfully mentions how phallic the swords coming out of the Son’s and Faithful and True’s mouths are. Considering he mentioned in the beginning of the chapter how John’s writing Revelation as a vision allows for a “spiritual dreamscape” full of symbolism, I like how he takes these two scenes almost literally even though a weapon coming out of someone’s mouth could more often than not refer to that person’s language and their words, in this case how the words of the Son and the rider might be powerful tools as they pass judgment and create destruction on their enemies. Just thought I’d mention it.