Dear Mr. Tng,
After reading Mr. Strieber's comments condemning
Christians who hope for Christ's return soon, I
couldn't help but respond to him. I dare say he'll
never see my reply, and I expect the letter will be
read by an intern and then sent straight to the
bit-bucket, but I thought the readers at Dove's might
find it interesting, if it's not too long to bother
with.
Yours in Christ,
Keith Azariah-Kribbs

Herewith:

Mr. Strieber,
In your column of Tuesday March 15th, 2005, you
vigorously condemn those Christians who are
enthusiastic in their anticipation of the return of
Jesus Christ to Earth.  You argue that, as a result of
this anticipation, the United States has "quit trying
to save the planet...." You continue: "What is so
terrifying is that this process of turning away from
our own future emerges out of a bizarre death wish
known as 'the Rapture' that is afflicting a
substantial enough proportion of the American
population to affect the electoral process." You
condemn these Christians as "mad people, and there are
millions of them, ... led by lunatics," and through
condemning them you also vilify the Christ of their
vision as a "cruel, selfish and mean-spirited god."

I'd like to suggest that you are in error in your
characterization of Christians who anticipate the
immanent return of Jesus Christ. As it happens, we
care intensely for the future, and not just our own
future. In fact, concern for the future is what drives
this enthusiasm.

Your mischaracterization of what the Rapture and the
subsequent end of the world means is a common one.
I've had occasion to discuss the end of the world as
we know it from time to time, and the response on the
part of non-Christians is always the same. They wonder
how I could be so uncaring as to not want my children
(I have three) to have an opportunity to experience
the challenges and joys and experiences of this world
to the fullest possible extent.

These words are always spoken by people whom I know to
be good parents, caring parents, loving parents. They
are intelligent, motivated, and gracious people. They
would spare their children any failure, pain,
suffering, if it were in their gift to spare it.
Obviously they haven't quite caught on to what I'm
talking about. Most of them, fortunately, don't
attribute anything sinister to my wish for Jesus'
return. They don't suppose, as you suggest, that I
hope that "Jesus Christ, the great master of
compassion, will transform into the great champion of
the selfish, and heap rewards on the few while leaving
the many to perish."

After all, the world is already full of suffering for
the non-believers, Mr. Strieber, and for the believers
as well, and Jesus is not back yet. In portioning out
the suffering, there appears to be little distinction
made in this world between the two groups. The only
variation in this monotonous scheme is the extent to
which one makes oneself comfortable before one
perishes, an act that most in the rich nations often
do at the expense of the poorer peoples of the world
whose lives you seem so eager to extend. By your own
logic, it seems to me that the Christians who live in
prosperous America are acting against their own
interests in seeking the end of this world. Their
desire for the return of Jesus Christ begins to look
more like an act of selfless, sacrificial charity than
otherwise.

But Christians are realists, and we know that until
Jesus does return, we are here to stay until we die,
and although we might hope for His return, we don't
know when it will happen. You err in your presumption
that Christians care nothing for the future: "I am
sure that most of you are involved with future
generations also, that you have children who are
precious beyond imagining, and that you, also, want
the world to continue." It is precisely because
Christians have loved ones that we are hopeful that
they might have an opportunity to live in a world that
is truly free of the suffering in this world. It is
for precisely these reasons that we are not especially
interested in seeing this world continue. J.R.R.
Tolkien, commenting on the hostility of some
individuals towards fantasy, or 'escapist,'
literature, suggested that only a jailer would find
anything offensive in such art.

It's the same with Christianity. You argue: "How
ironic that many of the same people who preach about
the evils of murdering the unborn eagerly embrace the
idea that it is a religious requirement to actually
seek to induce the mythical battle of Armageddon in
order to hasten the 'end times'--which will mean not
the tragic deaths of some thousands of aborted
fetuses, but the unimaginably terrible spectacle of
the deaths of billions, the collapse of the species
back into a far poorer and more primitive existence,
and possibly even its extinction." I'm afraid you're
going to have to point out to me, Mr. Strieber, who
among those billions is not going to suffer and die if
the world is somehow saved from Armageddon. In fact,
your comments above suggest that you are not quite
clear on what Christians who wish Jesus' return expect
the world to be like after He does so. You argue that
the Christian desire for Armageddon will only result
in "the collapse of the species, and possibly even its
extinction." I'm afraid you have indulged in a little
intellectual dishonesty here. If you insist that
Christians desire Armageddon, then you must in
fairness also admit what they think Armageddon will
bring about. It's not a complicated story. If Jesus
returns and takes over this world, then nobody suffers
with illness anymore, nobody is poor, and nobody dies.
I'm afraid you'll have to point out for me the lunacy
in such a desire.

Of course, your objection stems from your assumption
that the Christian vision of what Armageddon will
bring about is in error, and that deluded Christian
motivations will simply permit political actions that
will result in a more disagreeable end of the world
than the Christians had intended. But in that case,
you simply disagree with the accuracy of Christian
doctrine. And that leads you yet into another error
regarding your characterization of Christians. I see
from the end of your essay that you hold out the hope
of a Christ who is good, "not the cruel, death-hungry
and guilt-spreading vulture of the Rapturists, but the
beautiful being whose words make the New Testament a
document of such value to humankind."

But what would you have this Beautiful Being do? It's
a matter of Christian doctrine, and for that matter of
Jewish and Hindu and Muslim doctrine, that at some
point in the future God intends to wrap this drama and
lower the curtain. I make no apology for that--I
rather like the idea myself. But it is disingenuous of
you to condemn Christians for believing in their own
doctrine, and if you intend to criticize Christians
for wanting Armageddon, then you must in fairness also
condemn them for wanting the results of Armageddon,
which is universal peace and brotherhood. Since nobody
can predict the future, as you rightly indicate
yourself, we only criticize one another for our
motives. You must criticize Christians for theirs, if
you truly feel you can.

You appear to want to characterize Jesus as a man
who's mission was simply to help us learn how to
behave in this fallen world, and, having done that, to
please get out of the way and let us get on with it.
This world, despite its evils, appears to be
sufficiently comfortable for you, if it can just be
saved from global warming. But you and I live in a
prosperous, privileged part of the world. Even if it
were ours to speak for the rest of the world, would we
really have the arrogance to do so?

Fortunately, that option was never in the bargain. God
does not intend to leave the fate of the world to any
of us, not the Rapturists nor the rest. He decides,
and He has given us a few clues about what He intends.
Some of us are happy with what He has indicated He is
going to do, and we hope He does it quickly. But if
your quarrel is with that, then your quarrel is with
Christ, not the Christians. You can't blame us for
believing our own religion. And if you decide to
condemn us for it, then we insist only that you
condemn us for the whole thing. Blame us for wanting
the end of the world if you insist. But then you must
blame us as well for wanting to live in a world of
beauty and peace for our children and for our brothers
and sisters and for you as well, under the one and
only true King who can make such a thing happen.

Do Christians think about the future? You and I have
one thing in common, Mr. Strieber. We both write. And
we both know that only a fool would sit in front of a
keyboard and spend a year pounding out a text if he
didn't intend that somebody should read it. We raise
our children, we work at our jobs, because that's what
we have to do and because there really is nothing else
we can do. Christians can't make Armageddon happen.
Your conviction that somehow by wishing for the end of
the world we are bringing about a global ecological
catastrophe is indefensible. You argue that American
Christians are somehow especially culpable: "Other
countries know [the danger], too. Even China has
embraced the global warming message and is seeking
ways to control its own emissions. The Kyoto Treaty
recently went into effect, and is being taken
extremely seriously by its signatories." Of course you
fail to mention that China is exempt from Kyoto. It is
largely a result of speculators' enthusiasm over
China's and India's new appetite for oil that the
price of gasoline is now over two dollars per gallon.
Perhaps we would both be better employed criticizing
the enthusiasm of the Chinese and the Indian motorist.

It has become fashionable lately to condemn American
Christians, especially the end-of-the-world variety.
This essay of yours is not the first to suggest,
seriously or otherwise, that the Christian vote is
somehow especially pernicious. I think your criticisms
of Christianity would sound more substantive, however,
if you did not misrepresent what the Christians who
wait on Jesus really wait on Him for.

Yours,
Keith Azariah-Kribbs