chp3: tighten structure on Apocalypse vs anti-catastrophic criticisms

1 files changed, 51 insertions, 32 deletions

diff --git a/chapter3.md b/chapter3.md
index f5ea78f..5d2f11e 100644
--- a/chapter3.md
+++ b/chapter3.md
@@ -24,21 +24,28 @@ of time.' [@flannery-2024, p. 210]
 Flannery's critique would imply that green rhetors ought to avoid apocalyptic
 language. This conclusion rests on two key premises: one, that apocalyptic
 language is catastrophic in the same way which leads to fatalism, conservatism
-and post-politics as described above; and two, that catastrophe is the dominant
-effective symbol associated with apocalyptic language. In the next chapter, I
-will argue against both of these premises, using the Apocalypse of St John as
-a model of apocalyptic language.
-
-The first thing to notice is that, while the first three criticisms enumerated
-above all assume that apocalyptic language is catastrophic, the Apocalypse
-itself is not catastrophic. For St John, there is no impending catastrophe. The
-tribulations have already begun, and are largely in the hands of cosmic forces
-far bigger than his audience. The exhortation is not to avert the bad thing, but
-to endure it.
-
-Rev 2-3 opens John's vision with Jesus' address to seven churches in Asia.
-He exhorts them all to be faithful. For example, to the church in Ephesus, he
-implores:
+and post-politics as described in the previous chapter; and two, that
+catastrophe is the dominant effective symbol associated with apocalyptic
+language. In what remains of this chapter, I will argue against both of these
+premises, using the Apocalypse of St John as a model of apocalyptic language.
+
+What of the criticisms enumerated in the previous chapter, namely, that
+catastrophic language promotes fatalism, conservatism and post-politics? The
+first thing to observe here is that, whereas green rhetors typically position
+the catastrophe as an impending event over which the audience has some measure
+of control, St John, in contrast, discusses tribulations which have already
+begun, and are largely in the hands of cosmic forces far bigger than his
+audience. While John's tribulation discourse surely is catastrophic in some
+respects -- involving a definite period in time where cosmic-scale destruction
+renders former ways of life permanently unsustainable -- his exhortation is not
+to avert the catastrophe, but to endure it. As a result of this very different
+dialectic, John's catastrophism can be against fatalism and promote radical
+politics grounded in an analysis of power relations.
+
+John's alternative catastrophic dialectic is visible from the opening chapters
+of the Apocalypse, which makes explicit John's exhortation to endure. Rev 2-3
+opens John's vision with Jesus' address to seven churches in Asia.  He exhorts
+them all to be faithful. For example, to the church in Ephesus, he implores:
 
 > I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not
 > bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are
@@ -89,11 +96,15 @@ rich Christian might have had doing business unless they participated fully in
 the imperial cult \[CITE\].
 
 From this, it seems that the visions John relates are not, or at least not
-merely, about an impending catastrophe, but about events which are already
-unfolding. John's mythological language, among other things, may have functioned
-to situate the local, present contexts of John's audiences within a larger
-cosmic context, covering the whole of both space and time. Thus, as Ben
-Witherington III puts it:
+merely, about an impending catastrophe which he wants his audience to work to
+avoid, but about a catastrophe -- perhaps, as \[SCHOLAR\] suggests, a
+catastrophe only visible as a catastrophe from John's apocalyptic perspective
+-- which is already unfolding, which he wants his audience to endure. Given
+this rhetorical drive, John's mythological language, among other things, may
+have functioned to situate the local, present contexts of John's audiences
+within a larger cosmic context, covering the whole of both space and time,
+helping to motivate his audience to participate in John's self-sacrificial
+ethic.  Thus, as Ben Witherington III puts it:
 
 > This material is not _just_ about the future, nor should we have expected it
 > to be since it is narrative forensic rhetoric meant to prepare and exhort
@@ -121,9 +132,17 @@ evil requires a radical subversion of actual power relationships, and John
 conceives of just such a subversion, and calls his audience to participate in
 that event.
 
-Andrew Chester [@chaos-new-creation] has explored this idea in detail, noting,
-for example, that in Rev 6:12-17, God's life-sustaining creative acts of Gen 1
-are threatened with total annihilation:
+St John's rhetoric therefore is against fatalism: he motivates and calls his
+audience to political action. It is against conservatism: he asks his audience
+to subvert dominant power structures and build a radical alternative society
+and value system.  It is ardently political: his rhetoric is rooted in a
+analysis of power structures within Greek society, and particularly between the
+rich and poor among Asian Christian churches.
+
+Andrew Chester [@chaos-new-creation] has explored John's radical subversion of
+the dominant Greek value-system in detail, beginning with the observation that
+in Rev 6:12-17, God's life-sustaining creative acts of Gen 1 are threatened
+with total annihilation:
 
 > And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great
 > earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became
@@ -169,15 +188,15 @@ power, they tragically bring death and destruction on themselves and the world.
 > powerful, now hover on the edge of losing completely what distinguishes
 > them – the great lights and source of all life. [@chaos-new-creation, p. 346]
 
-Fatalistic? Conservative? Far from it. The destructive events of John's vision
-are the result of human powers distorting God's creation for their own ends. We
-can be complicit and accept the mark of the beast, or we can resist. Those who
-resist will conquer, but not in the way of God's enemies, who raise up armies to
-fight battles: the saints will conquer through the blood of the Lamb, and win
-pride of place in God's new creation, while the nations of the earth flood in to
-worship and to receive life and healing. 'It is an ethic for martyrdom,' as John
-J. Collins, a leading scholar on biblical apocalyptic, puts it
-[@apocalyptic-imagination, chp. 9].
+Fatalistic? Conservative? Post-political? Far from it. The destructive events
+of John's vision are the result of human powers distorting God's creation for
+their own ends. We can be complicit and accept the mark of the beast, or we can
+resist. Those who resist will conquer, but not in the way of God's enemies, who
+raise up armies to fight battles: the saints will conquer through the blood of
+the Lamb, and win pride of place in God's new creation, while the nations of
+the earth flood in to worship and to receive life and healing. 'It is an ethic
+for martyrdom,' as John J. Collins, a leading scholar on biblical apocalyptic,
+puts it [@apocalyptic-imagination, chp. 9].
 
 What about the accusations that apocalyptic language is destructive, violent,
 and vindictive? From the above discussion, it should hopefully be clear that