The End of the World

And the second angel sounded, and as it -were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; and the third part of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died. . . . And many men died of the waters because they were made bitter.

--Revelation 8: 8, 9, 11

Ever since the first claps of atomic thunder sounded two years ago, some Christians have been poring over the Book of Revelation, searching for portents and parallels. "Apocalyptic" has become an easy and much overworked word. But to theologians, the possibility--and perhaps imminence--of the world's destruction poses a number of grave questions." In the current issue of the Reinhold Niebuhr-edited quarterly, Christianity & Society, two U.S. theologians struggle with some of these questions. Writes Religion Professor W. Burnet Easton Jr. of Lawrence College:

"According to the New Testament and according to the facts of history, there is nothing in the Christian religion which guarantees the permanence of any civilization. Rather, according to the New Testament, not only are all civilizations under the judgment of doom, but the world itself must come to an end. . . ."

God's Will. "In principle, it does not make any difference whether the world ends tomorrow or 500,000,000 years from now. The New Testament has always said that there would be an end and that the end would be pretty rough, to put it mildly. For the New Testament, this world, societies, and indeed life itself, are but a temporary experience. Moreover, the success of the Christian Church and the validity of its faith does not depend and never has depended on its ability to save societies or prevent physical death. The Church did not save Roman Society, but it saved Romans who were in a doomed society; the Church did not save Feudal Society, but it saved men and women who were in Feudal Society. There is no guarantee that the Church can or will save Modern Society, but if it preaches its gospel it can save men and women who are caught in this society. . . .

"One of the first tasks, then, of the Church ... is to disabuse the Church and the world of the idea that the success of the Church is contingent on preventing wars or saving man or society from destruction, or that the validity of the Christian faith is in the slightest imperiled even if the whole world be destroyed. . . . God did not allow man to discover [atomic energy] until He was ready that man should discover it. Whether it is God's intention to use this means to bring this world to an end, or to lead it into a new era of creativity, it is impossible for us to say. ... But we can say that whatever God intends He will accomplish, and that His purposes are good and righteous altogether. . . ."

Man's Arrogance. Union Theological Seminary's Roger L. Shinn cannot accept such shifting of man's responsibilities. He replies in the same issue:

". . . It seems to me that there is a tremendous difference caused by the fact that it is now man who threatens to undo the history ordained by God. ... In biblical prophecy and apocalypse, it is God who in one of His finally mighty acts brings history to an end. Now it is man who in blatant self-assertion, in fear-nourished pride, threatens to take his destiny into his own hands and hurl himself to destruction. This is the miserable arrogance of the creature who never learned to serve his Creator, the final blasphemy of man who thought that he could be God. ". . . It seems to me thoroughly dangerous to say that God's plan for man's use of atomic energy will be carried out--that He has destined it for creative use or for destruction and that His intention will be executed. This line of thought would demand that we say it was God's intention that six million Jews die in the recent European carnage, that uncounted millions of men live today in fear of secret police. . . . With such a conception of sovereignty, how can we avoid saying that whatever is, is right?

"Interpretations of history have been truer to the Christian experience when they have said that God is battling the hosts of evil--Satan, or the 'principalities and powers,' or the antiChrist. The conflict is real. Wicked men defy God's purpose and His will is distorted and disobeyed. This has been the course of history, and it will be the same if men turn atomic energy to human destruction. . . .

"Thus we may say that man, in stark opposition to the righteous will of God, may destroy his civilization and life. This may be exactly the opposite of God's intention--if anthropomorphic language is at all adequate here. But in that event, God's sovereignty will not be abrogated. For in those very events, man can turn to Him in repentance and faith, and forgiveness and salvation will be real. Faith will see God coming in judgment, and will discern within His wrath His love."

The Earth's Disorder. One of the more trenchant discussions of the subject has appeared in the French magazine Esprit, written by its editor, Personalist Philosopher Emmanuel Mounier. Like Easton, Mounier believes that neither the atom bomb nor any technical invention can have the slightest significance for the Christian interpretation of history. God's ending of the world and man's ending of it would be as different in essence as the setting of the sun and the snuffing of a candle.

With the approach of the first millennium 947 years ago, says Mounier, man also looked to the destruction of his world. "The word 'apocalypse' has become synonymous, in the contemporary mind, with catastrophe and terror. This is a gross misunderstanding. I do not mean that the [10th Century] Christians . . . felt no holy terror at the idea of judgment and divine justice. They were neither better nor worse than we are, but they viewed their weaknesses from a high moral perspective. They thought that Justice would be severe, but they knew that the severity would be just. . . . Even when they gave themselves over to terror . . . they were comforted by their faith that divine Justice is permeated with pity. . . .

"It is easier to talk about the Apocalypse and to consult occult books than to admit that one is an abettor of disorder. . . . The Apocalypse is indulged as a fad now in order to avoid undertaking, in the face of the sickness of Europe, measures for public wellbeing. . . . Europe's bad conscience lends itself to playing up the Apocalypse. This is not what the Apocalypse is for . . .1 have no more reason to deny than I have to admit that we may have entered into those convulsions which, according to the Scriptures, precede the end of the intermediary period. What I do know is that if this were the case, our duty would still be, as it was for our ancestors of the year 1000, to scrutinize our own disorder and to try, for the honor of man, to build on a solid foundation a city which, according to our faith, either defies or appeals to eternity."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.