As presented in Strozier’s essays, apocalyptic fundamentalism has had a great impact on human psychology. Strong Christian believers have experienced immense changes in their mentality, as well as in their attitudes toward other ways of thought. We can say that such changes in mindset definitely alter the ways in which fundamentalist groups approach the apocalyptic phenomenon, and how accepting they are of other beliefs. It is exactly these alterations that have redefined the psychology and malevolence of doomsday culture.

Strozier out rightly defines a connection between the psychological and violent backbone of apocalyptic dogma. The link stems from the concept of dualistic thinking, which separates two approaches or opinions on complete opposite ends of the spectrum, thus placing both at the highest and lowest extremes. In this way, we could predict a clash between both ends, considering that these extremities render both groups fundamentalist. Fundamentalist ideology is rooted in strong belief for a particular cause, which can blur the line between right and wrong, good and evil, and more so, appropriate vs. inappropriate conduct. This “opposing nature inherent in absolutist ideology”, as categorized by Strozier, certainly has the potential to cascade into violence.

I find the source of this violence to be a very interesting structural complex. One way to analyze this complex is through the role of punishment in the apocalyptic realm. Although the non-believers and sinners would face the consequences of God’s judgement, their punishment also had a reassuring feature for the fundamentalists; this relates to the torture practices used to induce confessions during the Middle Ages. The punishments were intended to reveal the truth, which somewhat added a spirit of purity and cleansing to these systems of torture. Fascinatingly enough, it is exactly this moral cleansing that glorified violence as a fundamentalist practice.

The shift from personal agency to the agency of God also plays a large role in the psychology of apocalyptic violence. Since strong believers in the Christian faith strove to spread God’s message, their sense of individuality was replaced with religious conformity. The lessening of personal identity carries with it a degradation of individual consciousness, guilt, or responsibility. This inherently sets the stage for violence against the opposing force. This ties into yet another principle that Stroizer underscores, which is the numbing that arises from a strong commitment to a dualistic cause.

It is pertinent to note the origin of eschatological violence, as it provides a rather accurate route to the buildup of contemporary apocalyptic action and mindset. Even more importantly, it helps explain the choices that authors make in establishing the plot or characters of their apocalyptic literature. Such choices are evident in Glorious Appearing, by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. It would seem as though the text is written from a somewhat fundamentalist point of view, since Carpathia is portrayed as a manifestation of the Antichrist. However, in some respects, even Carpathia can be placed in his own fundamentalist sector. He clearly has been numbed by the firm belief in his own manifest destiny, and resolutely rejects Christ as the Messiah. Instead, he believes that he has “the privilege of serving God on Earth”, and imposes this belief onto his subjects through violent and oppressive means. Carpathia even delivers his violence through the Global Community Unity Part, and thus follows through with the element of militant opposition.

The typical fundamentalists including Chang, Mac, and Rayford suffered from the cognitive dissonance that reigned over most Christian fundamentalists of the time. Throughout the book, we see just how devout these people are to their faith in the Messiah. They know they will have to suffer through the violence around them, but are still in ever close watch of Christ’s Glorious Appearing. The authors display some mockery towards this absolute faith when they write, “ If only God had schedule the Glorious Appearing on Halloween…” (49) And yet, even these pious fundamentalists engage in violence at some point. For example, as a result of his allegiance to God and a weak commitment to his personal agenda, Mac assailed a Unity soldier.

We see that each fundamentalist group has a psychological foundation for its violence. But if the groups foster complete rejection of their opposition, can this still be called dualistic thinking? It seems to be that the fundamentalist way of absolutism is very one sided…indeed, there is nothing dual about it.