Reading Revelation Responsibly, Part 2

In the first part of my review of Michael J. Gorman's Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness, Following the Lamb into the New Creation I praised the book's readability and clarity, but still said that I couldn't recommend it to the general reader. Considering his mostly non-technical style and aim to give an answer to the more popular, but inaccurate, interpretations of the Book of Revelation, I have to think that he was shooting for a broader audience.  I mentioned the price, that is steep for a relatively thin paperback.  The other reason, not entirely unrelated to the first, is that Gorman puts forward some very controversial, if not really new, ideas that might end up distracting a reader new to the topic.  In other words, I don't think that this is the first book on the topic someone should invest their hard earned money in; maybe the third or the fourth.  I would hate to see someone abandon their search for the truth because they were given solid food when they needed milk at that particular moment.

I referred to Gorman's book as solid food, but that doesn't mean that I swallowed all of it.  He is trying to show that Revelation shouldn't be read like a code book; that the divine author is not trying to predict precise events in the future but rather showing people of all ages the pratfalls humanity falls into and the obstacles to true worship and devotion to God that never seem to go out of style.  In the end if we look closely at everything happening today we can understand that it's all just little bits of history repeating, as Shirley Bassey might say.  

So far, so good.  Next he points out that one of these obstacles to true worship of God is "civil religion," where devotion and the giving of qualities that belongs to God alone are transferred to the state.  Seeing your nation as being Divinely mandated somehow, or exceptional would be one such manifestation of this civil religion. Other examples include; to credit one's country with spreading and defending freedom, to justify their military activity by saying it saves others from tyranny, to build loyalty around a collection of "sacred texts" like constitutions or declarations of independence, and even reciting something like the Pledge of Allegiance could be a form of idolatry. He joins this with a critique of empire (with Rome as the template) that points in one direction: The United States of America.  Consistent with his interpretive method, it is not that the United States is the Babylon foretold in scripture, but rather that the U.S. needs to be examined in light of Revelation to see if it hasn't become the latest manifestation of the culture of death that the last book of the Bible describes (it's safe to say that his mind is made up on that point).  More precisely, the faithful disciple needs to examine his or her conscience to see if and how they are participating in this civil religion that Gorman describes.

Basically, to be a faithful disciple one must withdraw from the elements of culture and society that promotes the civil religion, while not withdrawing from society completely.  Saying the Pledge, as was mentioned before and joining the military are out (the later because it is an instrument of imperial oppression).  The mixing of religious and civil symbols, known as syncretism, is also a violation of the commandment to honor God before all else.  This means no national flags in church, not using "God Bless America" as a hymn on the Fourth of July, no praying for veterans on Memorial Day, among other things.  Only the mildest forms of patriotism pass muster according to Gorman.  He is clear that the Christian shouldn't live in isolation, but work to alleviate the sufferings of others and to work against the injustice caused by imperial abuses.


If what Gorman writes represents the default position of the disciple a question that comes to my mind is, what exactly is the role a Christian in public life?  Is running for office or accepting a government appointment a form of "serving the empire?" Most of these positions demand that the office holder take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Is this a form of idolatry?  If so, is the role of the Christian reduced to marches, protests, voting and, in general, being some type of holy gadfly? Gorman makes clear that Christians are not to live in isolation, but reject those parts of the culture that witness against Gospel values. Even with this important caveat I have a hard time seeing how being a good citizen and a faithful Christian can be reconciled using Gorman's reasoning, short of building a ghetto. 


I really do prefer to keep these posts short, so I will end it here.  This is just one problem I have with Gorman's analysis, and may return to discuss more problems that I have at a later date.  But my objections shouldn't be interpreted as meaning I didn't like the book; I did.  I am in complete agreement with his basic premise on how the Book of Revelation should be read and applied responsibly to our life.  I'm not in complete disagreement with his analysis of empire and its application to contemporary situations.  As Americans we need to have the courage to examine ourselves honestly, and not be afraid to admit when we, as a nation, have lost our way.  I just don't believe that patriotism is a vice, or reciting a Pledge that acknowledges God as a higher power than the state is a form of idolatry.