Add to Your Faith! A Message from 2nd Peter 1

Tucked away in 2 Peter chapter 1 is a great passage that deals mainly with two things: what God has done for his people, and what he expects his people to do in response.

Peter begins the letter by reminding his Christian readers of what God has done for us. By exerting his "divine power," the Lord has given us "everything we need for life and godliness." By sending Christ, who was crucified for our sins and raised by the power of the Spirit for our justification, the Father has provided the way through which we can receive everything that we really need. Christians have joy and confidence because we know the one who has "called us by his own glory and goodness" (1:3).

Also, by calling us and allowing us to know him, God has extended to his people "very great and precious promises." Such gifts are not an end in themselves. They are meant to enable us to “participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world" (1:4). To put it another way, the promises of God draw us closer to him and encourage us to live lives in which we become holy, even as God is holy (Leviticus 20:7-8; 1 Peter 1:15-16). By living this way, we are set free from the destructive power of a sinful lifestyle so that we can fulfill our one great purpose of bringing glory and honor to God. This leads directly into a discussion of the human response to divine grace.

Beginning with verse 5, Peter turns from his description of God’s grace to the responsibilities of God’s people. We are to give “all diligence” (KJV) or “make every effort” (NIV) to “add” certain qualities to the foundation of our faith. There’s hardly a good way to translate the Greek word for “add,” which actually means “to provide at one's own expense.” The term highlights the idea of personal effort and sacrifice. The language suggests that although adding to your faith is worthwhile, it is not always easy. Consider each item that Christians are to have or to add:

Faith refers to our loyalty to God as well as our trust in him. It is mentioned first in the list because without faith we cannot even begin to please God (Hebrews 11:6). But on the basis of faith, we can obey and live for God. It is in this sense that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1). Faith is the victory that overcomes the world (1 John 5:4).

Goodness carries the idea of "moral excellence" in the broadest sense of that expression. Because the Greek term here is so very general, the King James translators chose the word "virtue." Like their Lord, the followers of Jesus Christ should be known as people who do go about doing good things (Acts 10:37-38).

Knowledge supplies a Christian what he or she must have in order to make moral choices and doctrinal decisions. It is only upon the basis of knowledge that Christians can “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21) or “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1-3).

Self-control is the virtue that enables a Christian to resist temptation and closely follow the footsteps of Jesus. Developing this trait requires a person to rise above our environment. To be self-controlled runs against the grain of a society that practically worships unsuppressed action and the breaking down of inhibitions. But people who want to please God will work at strengthening the muscles of restraint so that they can act as they should.

Perseverance is translated from a word whose verb form means "to remain under." From this we gather that to persevere is to willingly remain under a heavy load you'd rather not carry. In this sense, the call for patience is similar to our expression, "Stick to it" or "Stay with it." Far too many families and churches are plagued by a lack of loyalty, an unwilling attitude in the face of those inevitable conflicts. The gospel has something to say to people who are prone to give up. It says, “Stick to it, and learn to patiently endure whatever you must for the sake of the kingdom of God!” (compare Hebrews 12:1-3).

Godliness refers to a right attitude towards God which leads to the right actions towards God's creation. Whenever we gratefully acknowledge the Almighty as the maker and sustainer of everything, we develop a sense of how we should treat other people, who bear the likeness and image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, James 3:7-10, and 1 John 4:20).

Brotherly kindness initially speaks of the warmth and affection that should be found in every family, but especially in the church, the family of God. According to Peter's first letter, sincere love for our brothers and sisters in the Lord is a by-product of our obedience to the truth (1 Peter 1:22).

Love is mentioned last. Why? Because love is the single quality that encompasses and supports all the others. Love is the capstone quality of the Christian life. It is what makes our abilities and sacrifices worth something in the eyes of God (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

So what do you need to add?

Been Readin' Again

Two new articles that are especially noteworthy:

1. It's time for me and other college instructors to really roll up our sleeves and make higher education reach higher. Here's the low-down on learning in American colleges and universities.

2. Gordon McDonald tells a heart-warming, challenging story: Seat Selection for Worship: Sometimes the Spirit doesn't give you the coveted aisle seat.

Learning How to Interpret a Biblical Psalm

A few years ago, I developed the following lesson plan for a unit on the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament course that I teach at Amarillo College. I want to give credit where credit is due: I based my observations and the student exercises on a presentation by Professor David J. A. Clines of the University of Sheffield, in the U.K. Dr. Clines was speaking at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 2000. I attended the session and got the following ideas from what he said:

Exercise 1: Describe the relationship between the two halves (or several parts) of these verses in the Book of Psalms. How does the second (and third, fourth) part of the line relate to the first part?

1:1

1:6

24:2

29:1

91:14

119:11

As you have seen, the most basic feature of Hebrew poetry is couplet composition. This feature is more commonly called parallelism because the two or more parts of a psalm verse are in some way parallel to each other. Each verse consists of A and then B (and occasionally C, and even D). In order to understand it, each verse requires the reader to identify how B relates to A.

A second feature of Hebrew poetry is the strophe. What's that? Think of it this way: a strophe is to poetry what a paragraph is to prose. A strophe is a distinct block within poetic material. It's clear that the biblical poets thought and composed in strophes. However, the Hebrew text of the Psalms contains no markers for strophes. So it’s up to us to locate and identify them. What is the point of doing that? It reveals the major sections, the basic structure, and the progression of a psalm.

Exercise 2: Close your Bible. What follows is Psalm 2 in the New International Version translation. However, here the verses come one after the other, with no breaks to identify the strophes. (You may have never noticed it before, but the actual text of the NIV does mark off strophes with a blank line in between them). Now, identify the strophes by marking where you think the main divisions of this psalm occur. Be prepared to explain your “division decisions.”

Psalm 2 (NIV)

1 Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.
3 "Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters."
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill."
7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
 ___________________________________________

What kinds of signals or indicators led you to mark the divisions as you did? Once you have answered that question for each strophe, compare your results with your copy of the Bible. (Most modern translations of the Psalms indicate strophes by a blank line between them).

Now that you have identified the four strophes of Psalm 2, we can theorize about strophe identification:

1. Here are some clues that one strophe has ended and another is beginning:

change of speaker
change of location, setting
change of mood
change of topic

2. Here are some clues that a strophe is concluding:

a line repeats (word-for-word or in ideas) the line that opened the strophe
words like “forever,” “always,” or “death” may suggest an ending
a line summarizes the thought of the strophe as a whole
a refrain (a line that appears at the end of several strophes)

3. Here are some are clues that a new strophe is beginning:

change of addressee
words like “therefore” and “now.”

Exercise 3: Now it’s time to sharpen your ability to visualize what’s happening in a psalm. Imagine that you are a screenplay writer. You have been assigned the task of preparing a script for a short film depicting Psalm 2. For each strophe, you will need to identify things like:

· The location. Where does the action take place?
· Who is present?
· The speaker(s)
· The lighting, atmosphere, colors, mood, camera angles, etc.
· Since you are incredibly talented, go ahead and compose the soundtrack too. Does each scene include a musical score? What does it sound like? What specific recordings would you select for each scene?

Ecclesiates: How It Works, What It Says

It's been a long while since I've written anything about Ecclesiastes. In previous posts, I discussed the book's setting in the leadership structure of ancient Israel, and also the title of the book. But now I want to get around to talking about how Ecclesiastes works, what it's actually saying and how. What follows is a short overview of my take. See what you think:

1. Unlike the practical wisdom book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes is an example of reflective, speculative wisdom. Instead of asking about how to live one’s life, this book asks about the meaning of life. The one other Old Testament book in the speculative-wisdom category is Job.

2. Ecclesiastes explores a specific question: What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? (1:3 NIV). I take this to mean something like: What is the point of a life well lived, a life characterized by productive work? Is there a lasting benefit? What aspect of ourselves will survive death and the ravages of time? As one would expect, since this question serves as the program for Ecclesiastes, the author repeats it several times. (See, for example, 2:22, 3:9, 5:16, and 6:8).

3. In response to his own question, the author of Ecclesiastes offers an initial, standard answer, which sounds hopeless and bleak: "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." (1:2). For the time being, I'll stay away from the question of what is the best English word for the Hebrew hebel, translated "Meaningless" here. Whatever the right word is, it's important to note that Ecclesiastes often repeats this first, most-basic conclusion announcing the enigma or futility of the search for significance in life. (See, for example, 1:14; 2:1 and 11, etc.). The book ends in 12:8 in much the same way as it began in 1:2. Connected to his general conclusion is the author’s frequent observation that the pursuits of human life amount to a chasing after the wind (1:14, 17, 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16 ).

4. The author’s experiences and observations have led him to his pessimistic conclusion. A few examples:

• Famously (or infamously) the author appears to be agnostic about life beyond the grave: Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth? (3:21).
• He denies that anyone can predict the future with any kind of accuracy: a man cannot discover anything about his future (7:14).
• He insists that the search for ironclad, surefire wisdom is also futile: Whatever wisdom may be, it is far away and most profound – who can discover it? (7:24).
• Sorting out what seems to be clear and well-known is apparently an impossible task. "Who knows the explanation of things? asks the wise man" (8:1). No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it (8:17).

5. So at one level, the human quest for meaning and significance meets with failure and frustration. However, Ecclesiastes is not entirely pessimistic about the possibility of joy and contentment. The author includes a series of passages that use phrases like find satisfaction and be happy and enjoy in a positive way. Ecclesiastes introduces this series with the words "nothing better" (2:24-25, 3:12-13, 3:22, 5:18-20, 8:15, and 9:7-10). When reading these passages, one notices that the sequence moves from (a) observation to (b) commendation to (c) the final imperative of 9:7-10, which strikes me as a high point of the book.

Here, the legitimate enjoyment of good things is brought within the circle of God's will for humanity. This is the single most important contribution that Ecclesiastes makes to the biblical witness: that taking pleasure, today, in your work, in good food and drink, and in your family, is not only approved by the Almighty. In fact, happiness and joy are an important aspect of the revealed will of God for human life.

Does this look convincing? What are some of your own thoughts and reactions to Ecclesiastes?

Note about Study and Sources:

At different times over the last 20 years, I've taken a series of runs at Ecclesiastes. One time I read it almost every night for about a month. When it comes to really getting a handle on a particular book of the Bible, or any text for that matter, there's just no substitute for careful, repeated, sometimes-slow reading. Anyone who's tried this knows exactly what I mean. There are some books that probably should be read in a hurry. But a book like Ecclesiastes is deserving of meditation. In addition to reading Ecclesiastes, I've spent some time with a few of its better interpreters. Two authors in particular have helped me to get a handle on this book: the late, great Robert Gordis, and an Old Testament specialist from the current generation, Graham S. Ogden.

My 10 Best Books of 2010

Happy New Year, everyone! I hope 2010 was a good one for you. Either way, we now have one of those psychological new beginnings. So make the most of it.

I took a couple of graduate courses in history last year. So, many of the books I read came from an assigned list. The first course I took focused on the Holocaust. The other one dealt with the Cold War, especially the Cuban Missile Crisis. Every once in a while I had the chance to pick up something that wasn't required reading. Anyway, listed in the order I read them (and highly rated because I just like them) here are "My 10 Best Books of 2010."

1. Hiding in the Spotlight, Greg Dawson.

A true Holocaust survival story that reads like a Dickens novel. The author is the son and nephew of the two main characters. He's also a seasoned journalist. This book is beautifully and tenderly written.

2. Fires: Essays, Poems, Stories, Raymond Carver.

I'd love to write half as well as the great Raymond Carver did. I can't stop reading his stuff. He wasn't afraid to tell sad, gritty stories generated by his own hard experiences.

3. Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume I: The Years of Persecution 1933-1939, Saul Friedlander.

First published in 1997, this book has gone on to establish itself as a major contribution to Holocaust studies. For Volume II, which covers the years of the War, 1939-1945, Friedlander won a 2008 Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction.

4. Outliers: The Story of Success, Malcomb Gladwell.

An easy reading book about how personal success is a matter of background and sustained effort. Gladwell says that both are highly significant.

5. Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Tribe in American History, S. C. Gwynne.

Wow. It's like David McCullough wrote a book about the Comanches. It's that good. Well-researched, superbly-written, this one is an armchair historian's dream come true.

6. The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past, John Lewis Gaddis.

A series of eight lectures by a Yale history professor. Gaddis responds to questions like, What do historians do? Why? And what is the value of their work?

7. Restoration Roots: The Scottish Origins of the American Restoration Movement, Lynn McMillon.

The subtitle says it all. This is a popular edition of McMillon's doctoral dissertation completed at Baylor University in 1972. It overviews the impact of Scottish religious leaders like John Glas, Robert Sandeman, and James and Robert Haldane on the subsequent American Restoration Movement (also known as the Stone-Campbell Movement).

8. The Week the World Stood Still: Inside the Secret Cuban Missile Crisis, Sheldon M. Stern.

From 1977 to 1999, Stern was Historian at the JFK Presidential Library. He was almost certainly one of the first to ever hear the tapes made at the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis. From his transcripts of those tapes, he narrates the episode and provides a historical framework.

9. The Kennedy Imprisonment: A Meditation on Power, Garry Wills.

Wills, the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and historian, serves up an analysis of the Kennedy clan. Sometimes sympathetic, often scathing, this book was written not long after Ted Kennedy's unsuccessful bid to gain the Democrat's nomination for President in 1980.

10. Waiting for Snow in Havana, Carlos Eire.

Born in Havana in 1950, Eire was a grade-schooler during the Castro revolution. These days he teaches religious history at Yale. In this memoir from his early years, the author brings together his childhood fun and fears, theology, and a deep, dreamy wonder about what might have been.

So, what were some of the better things you read in 2010? Has anyone else read the titles (or authors) I've listed here? What's on your reading agenda for 2011?

See Abigail Ski!

So Ab and I went to Ski Sundown today. It was her first time to go skiing. After her lessons, I took her up to the top of the mountain. She skied down like a champ. Watch out, Lindsey Vonn!

We had to take a break every once in a while. . . .

Six New Books. WooHoo!!

So Michele's parents sent me a Barnes and Noble gift card for Christmas, and my folks gave me some cash. So I took myself book shopping this afternoon. Here's what I came home with:

1. The Kennedys Amidst the Gathering Storm: A Thousand Days in London, 1938-1940, by Will Swift.

2. American Heroes: Profiles of Men and Women Who Shaped Early America, by Edmund S. Morgan.

3. Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater, by William F. Buckley Jr.

4. American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, by Jon Meacham

5. The Crowd Sounds Happy: A Story of Love, Madness, and Baseball, by Nicholas Dawidow.

6. The Best American Essays 2010, edited by Christopher Hitchens.

Now, which one to read first?

Coming soon to Frankly Speaking: My 10 Best Books of 2010

Suffering in Second Timothy

Suffering and sacrifice just aren't a part of God's plan for you. True Christianity is all about having peace and prosperity and everything you want, or at least most of what you want most of the time.

No, I wasn't speaking for myself there. Yes, I was trying to give expression to what I hear a lot of these days. Sickening, isn't it?

For a few months now, I've been teaching a Wednesday-night adult class that's surveying the New Testament. A couple weeks ago, getting ready for our time with Second Timothy, I sat down and spent about fifteen minutes or more slowly (and I mean slowly) reading through this short letter. Here's some of what I noticed, or noticed again. . . .

It seems that by the time he writes this letter, Paul has managed to get himself into prison in Rome (1:16-17). At an earlier stage in his life, when he wrote to people like Philemon and the Philippians, Paul told them to get a room ready for him. Even though he was confined for awhile, he said he would soon be coming to see them (for example, Philippians 1:12-26 and Philemon 22-23) But this time around, usually referred to as his "second Roman imprisonment," he doesn't seem to be hopeful about getting out (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

Timothy, on the other hand, is apparently at Ephesus (1:18), which is where Paul had left him according to 1 Timothy 1:3. From the first letter, it seems like Timothy was having to deal with a lot controversy. The second letter continues this theme. In a situation like that, says Paul, Timothy must teach his people to avoid disputing over words (2:14). Timothy himself must have nothing to do with these stupid, senseless controversies. And, he must avoid falling into the trap of becoming quarrelsome. He should be kind to everyone (2:23-24).

Apparently, handling this sort of assignment will not be easy for Timothy. Why? Because he is not one for taking the bull by the horns, so to speak. Running all the way through 2 Timothy is the hint that this young evangelist is very uncomfortable with conflict. At the beginning of the letter, for example, Paul says that he remembers Timothy's tears (1:4). What Timothy had been crying about is not clear. But what does seem clear is that Timothy is prone to being timid. Paul needs to remind him that the Spirit that God gave to us is not one of fear, but one of power, love, and self-control (1:7). Paul goes on to tell Timothy not to be ashamed. Neither he, Paul, nor his helper, Onesiphorus, were ashamed (1:12-17). From there, Paul goes on to issue several related examples and words of encouragement:

• be strong (2:1)
• take your share of suffering (2:3)
• I am suffering (2:9)
• I endure everything (2:10)
• You have witnessed my persecutions and sufferings. Now you endure (3:10-15)
• endure suffering (4:5)

These add up to a powerful testimony about the necessity for Christians, and especially their leaders, to endure hardship for the Lord's sake. So here are some questions we started out with in class. Before I asked these questions, I told the group that it wasn't my intention to bring everyone down. I was my intention to cause them to think about some things that are inevitable:

1. What is the most difficult thing you've ever had to endure? I'm not asking about just anything that was hard or painful. I'm thinking about enduring hardship for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of something that was important to you.

2. What is the most difficult conflict you've ever had with another person or group of people?

3. In those circumstances, what helped you or inspired you to hang on?

A Southwestern Wedding

So last weekend, Michele and Aubrey and I drove down to El Paso for a wedding. Eddie Cartagena and Marissa Hernandez (Michele's niece) got married.

It was a nice ceremony, something I would have said even if Michele's father didn't preside. He also conducted our wedding back in January 2004.

I don't think I'd like living in the desert southwest. But I did enjoy the warm weather in December.

The whole time we were there, I kept thinking about how, when we were there three years ago, it was safe for us to walk across the bridge over into Juarez. We found ourselves in a big crowd of out-of-towners who had come to El Paso for the Sun Bowl football game. What a difference a few years can make. Nowadays, you'd probably be safer in Baghdad or Tehran.

While I sometimes wondered about life on the other side of the Rio Grand, I also felt blessed to be on this side with my wife.

Day the World Ended (1955)

I promise. This post has absolutely nothing to do with the previous one. I'm not poking fun. Not being deliberately ironic. It just happened like this.

On his way to becoming Hollywood’s king of low-budget movies, in 1955 a young Roger Corman produced and directed Day the World Ended. It was one of his earliest films. Dozens more would follow in the years to come. But in his 1998 memoir, Corman remarks that it was this movie that established him as a director in the science fiction genre (p. 31).

The film’s opening title card announces, What you are about to see may never happen. . . . but to this anxious age in which we live, it presents a fearsome warning. . . . Our Story begins with . . . . THE END!

Next we see an example of that now-familiar stock footage of an atomic explosion, and we hear the narrator, Chet Huntley. His voice has been modified to sound tinny with a bit of reverb, a convention that signals to the viewer that these words come from the Bible. (The same thing turns up in the Jule Miller evangelistic film strips). The narration interprets the nuclear holocaust with words taken from 2 Peter 3:10 according to the King James Version: . . . and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (Note: This passage is often cited as biblical proof that Christian eschatology expects the fiery destruction of the created order. Few people are aware that this verse includes a notoriously difficult textual problem. In fact, the KJV rendering quoted above is not an accurate English translation of the autograph of Second Peter. In all likelihood, the original document said that the earth and everything in it would be “revealed” or “found,” not “burned up.” For a discussion of the questions raised by the various extant Greek manuscripts, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994], 636-37).

As survivors of World War III emerge through the smoke, the narrator tells us, “Man has done his best to destroy himself. But there is a force more powerful than man. And in his infinite wisdom, he has spared a few.” Those few soon begin showing up at the home of Jim Maddison (Paul Birch). Maddison and his daughter, Louise (Lori Nelson, pictured below) are safe, at least for the time being. Their house is in a valley protected by high winds, and by hills all around that contain lead-ore. Jim, a veteran of the U.S Navy, had long suspected that the worst would eventually happen. Ten years before it did, he carefully chose where he would live and stocked everything he would need in order for his family to survive. The lovely Louise has a fiancé, but we soon discover that he is among the victims.

The survivors who take refuge at the Maddison’s include a small-time crook Tony Lamont (Touch Conners, before he became Mike Conners of Mannix fame) and his girlfriend, an aging stripper named Ruby (Adele Jergens). A geologist named Rick (Richard Denning), who carries on his shoulders a man named Radek (Paul Dubov), follows them. Nearly dead, it seems, Radek has a bad case of radiation poisoning. Finally, a crusty old gold prospector, Pete (Raymond Hatton) shows up with his burro, Diablo, in tow. Thrown together by circumstance, the group spends the next several weeks waiting for the radiation to dissipate. Everyone stays inside for the most part, except for Radek who often wanders out at night and whose high roentgen count leads Jim and Rick to wonder why he’s still alive.

Eventually, they discover that Radek is some sort of partial mutant who kills and eats contaminated game during his nighttime ventures. As Rick describes things, Radek has survived because he’s the victim of “an entirely-new set of laws that we know nothing about.” But soon, Radek the hunter becomes prey. Stalking the valley is a full-blown mutant, actually Paul Blaisdell wearing one of the cheapest, most-pathetic monster suits in cinematic history. Soon after this monster with the huge head, bird beak, three eyes, and a 34-inch waist kills Radek, some of the other characters begin to kill off themselves or each other. Having grown impatient, Pete climbs out of the valley and onto the radioactive ridge. Tony, with his sights now set on Louise, stabs the jealous Ruby and throws her body off a cliff.

But Tony isn’t the only one interested in Louise. With the monster psychically calling to her, she wanders into the woods. When Rick discovers that she’s not in the house, he goes looking and finds her in a pond just out of the reach of the mutant, which seems to be afraid of the water. When Rick fires his rifle at the mutant, he discovers that it’s bullet proof, and he is also forced to take refuge in the pond. Just then, it begins to rain for the first time since the war. Immediately the monster begins to cringe, and it quickly dies. Louise tells Rick that, for some strange reason, she feels sorry for the mutant. And since it “spoke” only to her, viewers are left wondering if the monster was in fact Louise’s fiancé! (Usually, the man turning into a monster is something that happens after the wedding, right?). At any rate, as Rick and Louise return to the house, Tony plans to kill Rick so that he can have the girl for himself. At the last moment though, Jim, lying on the couch with a fatal case of radiation poisoning, pulls a hidden pistol and kills Tony. Afterwards, Rick, Louise, and Jim try to make sense of everything that’s recently happened. Jim says of the monster, That thing was created to live in a poisoned world. The rain came, and it was pure. Louise: Man created it, but God destroyed it. He brought the rain and the fresh air. Moments later, Jim dies, leaving only Rick and Louise. The final scene shows the couple healthy and smiling as they hike out of the valley arm-in-arm.

Of all the nuclear-war films that have been made, it would be hard to find one that is more explicitly religious than Day the World Ended. As my synopsis indicates, while the story acknowledges that humans are responsible for the event that brings them to near extinction, it also firmly places this event under the sovereign power of the God of the Christian Bible. Likewise, the end clearly asserts that humanity’s ability to survive and even flourish in a newly-cleansed world is also the result of the providential care of this God. To underscore all of this, midway through, the movie includes a Bible reading. In the previous scene, Jim and Rick wander through the woods. The men are perplexed by Radek’s strange behavior and by the question of what the fallout might have done to the environment. Jim asks his new friend, “What can we do, Rick?” An earlier scene revealed that Rick’s brother, who was instantly killed in the nuclear attack, was planning to become a minister. Rick replies to Jim’s question, My brother believed that the Bible gave strength and revealed a plan for everything. Jim responds, Then I hope I find it before I lose my mind. Back at his home, Jim holds a Bible and reads to the group:

. . . for I am with thee to save thee and to deliver thee, saith the Lord. And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible (Jeremiah 15:20b-21).

This raises a number of unanswered questions. Why has Jim made his way to the end of Jeremiah 15? Who does he assume that “the wicked” and “the terrible” might be? What sorts of applications is the viewer expected make? My last question leads back to Lou Rusoff, the author of the screenplay. But it’s really not that complicated. According to the story, Jim just happens to have found and read a passage that promises him—or at least his descendants through Louise—eventual rescue from radioactive monsters and nuclear fallout, not to mention Tony. Yes, it is a greeting-card understanding of the Bible. It’s also a very popular approach in Christian history and American culture.

In these ways, then, Day the World Ended assumes the existence and benevolent care of the God of the Christian Bible. Consequently, in this movie although humanity is responsible for World War III and the near extinction of life on Earth, the providence of God ensures that there are survivors. It also provides for a natural cleansing of the planet so that survivors then have the prospect of repopulating the world.

Some Sources:

Corman, Roger. How I Made a Hundred Movies in Hollywood and Never Lost a Dime. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998.

Kaufman, Gordon D. “Nuclear Eschatology and the Study of Religion,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 51 (March 1983): 3-14.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Date is Set for Christ's Return

Just in case you hadn't heard, Jesus is coming back . . . . on May 21, 2011. Be sure to mark your calendars.

My favorite part of the story: The article begins with, There are 24 shopping days left till Christmas. And 171 days left until Jesus' second coming. I looked through the comments section for this story. Here are some of the more interesting lines:

What? Jesus is coming back right after graduation? I'm SO done working!

Where are we going? And why are we in this hand basket?

Dangit! That's my dog's birthday. I'm totally going to have to change the theme for her party!

Does this guy also predict winning lottery numbers?

Isn't this strange? What do you think? Is it all a publicity and marketing campaign? Or do you think the people making this prediction are sincere?

Seven Days in May (1964)

I've been trying to work on a number of different historical projects lately. I know, I really should focus on just one. But I get distracted. Anyway, one of those projects has to do with feature films of the Cold War era. Here's a review of one of my favorites so far. Spoiler Alert! The first half of what follows is a full synopsis:

Seven Days in May Directed by John Frankenheimer
Novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II
Screenplay by Rod Serling
Seven Arts Productions and Joel Productions
118 minutes

Seven Days in May begins with a riot in front of the White House. It's the late 1960s and U.S. President Jordan Lyman (Fredric March) has recently signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Now, demonstrators for and against the treaty are coming to blows. The populace is afraid. The military-industrial complex feels betrayed. And the president’s approval rating has sunk to 29 percent.

In one of the opening scenes, the president talks with a sympathetic friend, Senator Raymond Clark (Edmond O’Brien). He explains his reason for making the pact. Sure, the U.S. could have maintained “a nice, cushy feeling that we’ve got a bomb for every one of theirs. But . . . there’d have come one day when they’d have blown us up, or we’d have blown them up.”

President Lyman’s most forceful opponent is Air Force General James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster). The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Scott is a highly decorated war hero who never misses a chance to denounce the new treaty. In one scene, he tells a congressional panel, “There’s not a single piece of paper in history that’s ever served as a deterrent to a Pearl Harbor.” The next day, at a televised rally with thousands of veterans cheering him on, he rails against “the cynics, the one-worlders, the intellectual dilettantes,” those who believe that “patriotism is old-fashioned” and that “love of country is out-dated.”

Scott’s aide at the Pentagon is Marine Colonel “Jiggs” Casey (Kirk Douglas). Casey admires Scott and shares his mistrust of the Soviets. But unlike the outspoken general, Casey stays clear of any public criticism of the administration. A series of clues leads Casey to an uneasy suspicion about his boss, and he requests a meeting with the president. At the White House, Casey reports what he has recently seen and heard. Finally, when President Lyman presses him to speak candidly, the colonel tells him, “I’m suggesting, Mr. President, there’s a military plot to take over the government.”

The president regards the conspiracy theory as possible, and he calls together a small group of trusted aides and officials, including Casey, to investigate. Casey approaches Scott’s former mistress, Eleanor Holbrook (Ava Gardner). Though he is genuinely attracted to her, he visits Holbrook at her apartment in order to find out what she knows about the general. Casey leaves with a stack of love letters written by Scott, letters that can be used against him. The rest of the team discovers that General Scott is, in fact, planning a coup. The scheme is impressive. Scott has set up a clandestine military base near El Paso where unknowing troops are training for seizure. A scheduled alert exercise in a few days will serve as the pretext for mobilizing the military and isolating the president. The armed forces will commandeer nation-wide communications, including the television networks. Almost all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a key member of the Senate, Frederick Prentice (Whit Bissell), are in on the plan. A popular television newsman, Harold McPherson (Hugh Marlowe) will manage the media in the replacement government.

At first, President Lyman intends to derail the conspiracy by exposing it. But General Scott’s team, well organized and determined, prevents the president from assembling the evidence he needs in order to make his case to the public. Then he learns that Scott has rescheduled the alert for late Saturday night, instead of Sunday morning. With time running out, the president phones the Pentagon and demands to see the general immediately. At the White House, Lyman confronts Scott, accuses him of treason, and demands his resignation. The general first denies the plan and then defends his motives. As he leaves, the president vows to fight him.

The next day as the president holds a televised press conference, he receives word that a key piece of evidence exposing the junta has been discovered. Soon, he reports that members of the Joint Chiefs have tendered their resignations. On hearing the news, General Scott tells his driver to take him home.

The film ends with President Lyman speaking to the nation. He declares that in spite of the negative national mood, “the whisperers, the detractors, the violent men are wrong.” The United States is still a strong nation, “strong enough to be a peacemaker.” It is still a proud nation, “proud enough to be patient.” He concludes with the rousing prophecy that “we will see a day when on this earth all men will walk out of the long tunnels of tyranny into the bright sunshine of freedom.” As he leaves the podium, the press corps stands and applauds.

One of the truly great movies depicting the Cold War, Seven Days in May captures so well what seems to have been its cultural context, the attitudes and the atmosphere in America at the time. In 1960, Nixon and Lodge, who nearly won the election, had used a slogan that could have been part of the script: “They Understand What Peace Demands.” Two years later, in October 1962, the Cuban missile crisis heightened the nation’s awareness that both the U.S. and the Soviet Union possessed a large arsenal of incredibly powerful nuclear weapons, and that even an accidental first strike would likely result in retaliation leading to full escalation. In 1964, the year the film was released, such fears were the basis of a clever response to a slogan used by the Republican presidential nominee. The Barry Goldwater campaign declared, “In Your Heart You Know He’s Right.” Supporters of Lyndon Johnson responded with, “In Your Heart You Know He Might.”

More than that, the film also editorializes by presenting a vision of the sort of Americans who can guide the nation to survival and even prosperity. The film “takes a side” in a vital debate during the Cold War. But it also attempts to make room for the opposing side. For example, during his televised press conference, President Lyman assures his hearers of their right to dissent. Viewers overhear him say:

Americans traditionally and historically have given vent to their views. On the date that this government does anything arbitrarily to stifle those views, it will have to change form. It will cease to be a democracy. And I can state quite frankly that this day will not come.

Earlier, when he faces off with the general, the president never suggests that his opponent’s militaristic views have no merit. Although he disagrees with Scott, Lyman does not debate the general’s position. What he objects to is Scott’s attempt to circumvent American rules and procedures. When General Scott professes “an abiding concern about the survival of this country,” President Lyman responds:

Then, by God, run for office! . . . You want to defend the United States of America. Then defend it using the tools it supplies you with, the Constitution. You ask for a mandate, General, from a ballot box. You don’t steal it after midnight, when the country has its back turned.

Colonel Casey, a third alternative, personifies a hawkish position that at the same time defends duly elected civilian authority. When the president meets with the colonel at the White House, he asks him what he thinks about General Scott’s militaristic views. Casey answers:

I agree with General Scott, Sir. I think we’re being played for suckers. I think it’s really your business, yours and the Senate. You did it and they agreed. So, well, I don’t see how we in the military can question it. I mean, we can question it, but we can’t fight it. . . . We shouldn’t anyway.

From the vantage point of the film, Lyman and Casey are ideal Americans. They are strong enough to act responsibly and to show respect even while they believe that they are in the right and that others are wrong. Seven Days in May seems to assume that strength and purity of character combined with uniquely-American institutions will always generate a way for the United States to prevail. Thus, the film reflects and encourages the values of that religion or folk philosophy that has been called "Americanism."

Sources

Farber, David, and Bailey, Beth. Columbia Guide to America in the 1960s. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.

The Internet Movie Database. “Seven Days in May (1964).” http://www.imdb.com/ title/tt0058576/