The end of the world or is it?

When an elderly Protestant lady I know was asked about her preparations for the Y2K computer problem, which threatens to disrupt all our lives on January 1,2000, she replied: "Oh I'm not worrying about that. The world is going to end before next January." Her questioner reported that there was neither a playful tone in her voice nor any gleam of mirth in her eye. She was completely serious. Curiously, this belief is fairly common among evangelical Protestants, despite the biblical reminder that the exact time of 'Christ's return is not for us to know. Biblical devotion notwithstanding, some Protestant groups have been focused on the Second Coming for decades. The well known hymn "He's Coming Soon" has been around for as long as I can remember.

Catholics who share this view present an even deeper puzzle. The Church has faced turmoil, both inside and outside its walls, throughout history. As corrupt as our political and social structures have become, they don't compare with those that existed during some of the great persecutions of the past. Some people argue, however, that the situation today is different, and their argument certainly has merit. Modernism, labeled the sum of all heresies by Pope Pius X, has recently assumed an alias: the New World Order--which we must not confuse with a genuine renewal of Christian life. In adopting that name, Modernism has donned sheep's clothing, so to speak.

New World Order

The New World Order, as it is understood by many political authorities, has become a rallying cry for opportunists around the world. Using its goals as justification, NATO, led by U.S. President William Clinton, inflicted death and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign nation. In his view, apparently, pursuit of the New World Order permits one to ignore international law, the founding principles of NATO and the United Nations, and common sense itself. In the bombing of Yugoslavia, we saw the new "moral consciousness" in action. Using politically correct phrases, Clinton often attempts to justify his position by calling to mind notions of good old-fashioned brotherhood.

In truth, Clinton's New World Order has nothing whatever to do with brotherhood, new or old. It has to do only with an insidious anti-humanism, a doctrine which has shaped the past several decades.

Man has docilely accepted the post-modern world's assessment of him: he's nothing more than another chance collocation of atoms, in no way different from any other physical object occupying the "environment." He is tossed and turned by circumstances and his own desires to attain pleasure and avoid pain. The so-called philosophy underlying all this nonsense is paper-thin, of course, but stout enough to support the great numbers of people whose thought processes stretch no farther than the length of a TV sound byte.

Christian destiny

If we hope to fulfill our destiny as Christians in a world so conceived, we had better begin working together in useful ways to influence public thought and culture. And simply tolerating the situation and talking about the Second Coming does not qualify as either useful or fulfilling.

Some Christians, who are understandably tired and demoralized, suggest that no harm is done in speculating about the end of the world. They dismiss the matter by pointing out that those who think judgment day is only a few months away are less inclined to commit sin, and declare that result to be a definite plus.

However, anyone who takes a broad view will see that the biblical warning against end-of-the-world speculation must be rigorously heeded. The end-times prophets offer not bread, but a stone, and adopting their mind-set will lead only to isolation, followed by an ethos of despair and even greater persecution.

In spite of those beaming smiles on the faces of television evangelists when they speak of Christ's imminent return to earth, their fundamental attitude is one of defeat. Yes, Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. But what should one suppose He expects us to do in the meantime? Should we all just hang around with big, knowing grins on our faces? A true story of prisoners of war in Korea suggests an answer.

A half dozen or so U.N. soldiers, captured in different sectors along the front, were herded into a small tent. Their Chinese captors not only failed to get medical help for those who had been wounded, they also beat all of them whenever the mood struck--and it struck often. When the guards were not mistreating their captives, they ignored them completely. One American GI, who had a relatively minor injury to his ankle, became demoralized almost at once. And although he was mobile, he made no effort to help the ones who could still walk, as they gathered grass for food and did whatever else they could to survive. Instead, he just lay motionless on the dirt floor. He had apparently decided to leave his fate and that of his fellow prisoners to someone else. His will to live gone, he died in a few days from no apparent cause other than his psychological state.

Another of the POWs, a Turk, had been shot several times with a heavy caliber machine gun and was unable to walk. He nevertheless sat and stared defiantly at the Chinese guards who knocked him around. When the guards weren't present, he fished out cigarettes he had hidden and offered them to his fellow POWs. He spoke no English, but smoked quietly, offering silent encouragement with his facial expressions, as if to say, "Hang in there, my friends. We're going to get through this." About a week later, rescue arrived in the form of an American tank, which was part of a force that had driven a hole in the Chinese lines. Except for the one American GI who had died shortly after being captured, all survived the ordeal. (This incident is historically documented. However, my efforts to find the source were unsuccessful.)

Admittedly, the plight of today's Christians cannot be compared directly to that of those POWs, but at least one parallel exists and is instructive. Although most people will not wither and die while waiting for Christ's return, neither will they accomplish very much for themselves or for their fellow Christians. Viktor Frankl, death-camp survivor and renowned psychologist, sums up our mission in life as follows:

"... man must have an aim toward which he can constantly direct his life. He must accomplish concrete, personal tasks and fulfill concrete, personal demands; he must realize that unique meaning which each of us has to fulfill" (Viktor Frankl, From Death-Camp to Existentialism, Beacon Hill, Boston, 1959, p. 100).

Pope John Paul II 

So what can Christians living in an openly anti-Christian world do? In sharp contrast to the doom-sayers who think God is about to pull the plug on humanity, Pope John Paul II has urged all of us to gather our strength and build for the future:

"The best preparation for the new millennium, therefore, can only be expressed in a renewed commitment to apply, as faithfully as possible, the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and of the whole Church" (Tertio millennio adveniente, November 14, 1994).

A few paragraphs earlier, the Pope speaks of the significant contributions made by his immediate predecessors, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul I, "to the preparation of that new springtime of Christian life which will be revealed by the great Jubilee, if Christians are docile to the actions of the Holy Spirit."

A course of action is clearly shown: "Apply the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and the whole Church." 'What does that mean? First, it means that we need to know what the Vatican II documents say. Until now, many Catholics have chosen to ignore the Council, simply because a band of mediocre "reformers" seized it to further a nefarious program of their own. In response to the hostile takeover of Vatican II, some among the faithful went so far as to question the very wisdom of the Council, in effect denying the Holy Spirit. Many other Catholics made an equally disastrous mistake by ingesting the pseudo-reformers' bogus interpretation of the Council like pablum from a purring nanny. This acceptance was not limited to laymen, either. Even some Archbishops and Cardinals answered the Siren call, not to mention the broad collection of priests and nuns whose vocations may have been questionable in the first place.

The net result was that the politicizers of the gospel were left free to continue their work. None of this could have happened, however, had it not been for a laity that had been conditioned for centuries to act only after being instructed by the clergy. To this day, many laymen remain unaware of the Council document on the laity and the responsibility it thrusts upon them.

If we follow the advice of the Holy Father, we can and will bring about "that new springtime of Christian life." In so doing, moreover, we will rejuvenate a culture that is on the critical list. (To be continued.)

Casey Ahern, a freelance writer, lives in Lethbridge, Alberta.