“There is pleasure in the pathless woods, there is rapture in the lonely shore, there is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in it’s roar.” Lord Byron
“All of connection is optimally rupture and repair.” Bonnie Badenroch
Well, it looks like instead of a rapture, we ended up with a rupture. It remains to be seen how well we will be able to repair it. I guess we are left with the choice of wallowing in the rupture or willowing in whatever rapture we can find. This post will reflect on the differences between raptures and ruptures and explore the paradox of how rapture can create rupture.
According to many social media “theorists,” the Rapture was supposed to occur on Tuesday, September 23, 2025. This was the day when Jesus Christ was supposed to return to Earth and take true believers to Heaven. Some evangelical Christians believe the Bible predicts such an event, which essentially marks the beginning of the end of human history. They interpret parts of the Christian New Testament as describing the Rapture, including a passage from First Thessalonians that says followers of Christ “who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”
Personally, I prefer another definition of rapture: a state of intense spiritual ecstasy, deep contemplation or being carried away by overwhelming emotion – a transcendence. To me rapture is like a willowing: spreading out in multiple directions, often in a gentle flowing manner.
In the famous song by Kansas, Carry On My Wayward Son, one stanza in the lyrics reads:
Once I rose above the noise and confusion
Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion
I was soaring ever higher
But I flew too high
That feels to me like transcendence or rapture with a looming possibility of rupture. It’s wonderful to be able to rise above the noise of our daily lives, but there is always a danger of going too far – rupturing our connection with reality.
The choice between rapture and rupture symbolizes a fundamental tension in human perception and response to ideas, beliefs, and transformative experiences. Rapture connotes a sense of joy and unity, while rupture signifies a break, disconnection, or fracture. While both concepts deal with significant shifts, their implications for societal cohesion and ideological stability are starkly different
Rapture is frequently associated with enlightenment. It can reflect spiritual awakening, romantic idealism, or the pursuit of utopian visions. For instance, in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, the idea of divine rapture that accompanied the angels’ rebellion or the vision of divine love inspired many readers. Similarly, in William Wordsworth’s poetry, rapture emerges as a profound connection with nature, fostering a sense of unity and transcendence that elevates the individual beyond mundane concerns.
There are also many stories, however, that demonstrate how the pursuit of rapture can be a double-edged sword. When individuals or societies chase after an idealized state of bliss or purity, they may distort the original meaning, leading to exclusion, fanaticism, or violence. This distortion often results in a rupture from reality or from other belief systems. The French Revolution, for instance, initially driven by notions of liberty and equality (aspiring to a kind of social rapture), devolved into internal violence and social rupture.
Unless rapture is grounded in humility and awareness, it can cause the very ruptures it seeks to mend. Recognizing this dynamic is crucial for navigating the fragile balance between aspiration and reality, unity and division.
Rupture, on the other hand, symbolizes breakage—between individuals, communities, or ideologies. T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land epitomizes cultural rupture, depicting a fragmented society disconnected from its spiritual and moral roots. Such ruptures often stem from disillusionment with the idea of eternal rapture; when the ideal fails to materialize or leads to betrayal of collectivist hopes, societal divisions deepen. Does all this sound familiar?
Historically, rupture has also emerged from ideological conflicts. The Reformation, for instance, was a rupture from the Catholic Church that led to profound religious divisions. The rupture was justified by some as a return to “true faith” (a form of sought rapture), yet it resulted in violent schisms that divided Europe for centuries.
The Israel-Gaza conflict illustrates how the concept of “rapture” in Christian theology can lead to rupture—both in terms of international relations and internal societal cohesion. For example, many Christians believe that Israel holds a central role because it is seen as the geographic location where the rapture and subsequent end-time events will occur. This belief often fosters a political and theological imperative to defend Israel at all costs, viewing it as a fulfillment of divine prophecy.
The heightened emphasis on defending Israel can cause rupture in several ways:
- The strong religious conviction that Israel must be defended as part of a divine plan can lead to polarized political stances, both within and outside of Israel. This can intensify conflicts, making diplomatic resolutions more difficult.
- Believers may assume that current events in Israel are directly linked to divine prophecy, leading to a form of religious confirmation bias that dismisses complex geopolitical realities. This can deepen conflicts rather than foster peaceful solutions.
- In multicultural societies with diverse views on Israel, such religious convictions can generate internal societal tensions, especially when political actions are justified by theological beliefs.
- The moral and ethical dilemmas posed by unconditional support for Israel can cause rupture within international communities, challenging notions of justice and peace.
Ok, enough of the historical, theological, and theoretical; let’s turn to the practical. How is this phenomenon playing out in our current environment.
I read two articles this week, one by Thomas Friedman and one by Benny Gantz which reinforced my view of how complicated these issues are. Essentially, Friedman warned us not to become so enraptured by the ideal of a two state solution—in which hostages are released, Hamas disarms, the Arab nations come together to provide immediate humanitarian assistance and commit to rebuilding Gaza, and everyone lives in peace—that we lose track of the realities on the ground. The reality is that Hamas is likely to reject this proposal, and the reaction will result in more death and destruction. Benny Gantz, on the other hand, claimed that the rupture between Israel and its Arab “neighbors” was irreparable and Israel must continue to take actions to ensure its security. After reading both articles, I was left with the unsettling conclusion that what both authors said seemed true. I was stuck with holding two contradictory opinions in my head at the same time. It’s complicated. Most Israelis see October 7 in Holocaust terms; most Palestinians see the reaction in Nakba terms. I guess the more enraptured we become with any seemingly ideal solution, the more probable it becomes that divisions will erupt that will prevent or delay its implementation.
What does all this mean for the organizations we care about and the individual lives we are trying to lead in the midst of all this noise? To me, it means that organizations, in their attempts at transformation, need to be conscious of becoming so enraptured with idealistic visions that they become untethered from the realities of the people and culture they are trying to change. Similarly, as individuals, if we want to avoid creating ruptures that will be difficult to repair with our family, friends, and faith in the future, we may need to rein in any rapture we are seeking. At the same time, we need to make sure that whatever ruptures do occur don’t preclude any possible raptures in the future.
In my experience, the most critical success factor in transformation is whether or not the people believe that change is possible. A recent Times/Siena poll found that 64% of Americans don’t believe the government is capable of solving our problems. That’s up from 42% five years ago. To compound the problem, over 30% of American adults believe that violence will be necessary to achieve change. That’s up from 20% five years ago. Bottom line: rupture appears more likely than rapture.
The most pressing issue for me, however, is how to find enough connection, community, and common ground to repair and restore the ruptures that have occurred. I am finding that challenge hard to address given how polarized, politicized, and locked into our perceptions and beliefs we have become. I would much prefer to pursue possibilities of rapture than spend all my time thinking about and dealing with the consequences of the ruptures we are experiencing. The reality is that we need to do both if we want to find any joy in our lives.
I’m hoping we can rise above whatever noise and confusion exists in our lives so that we can get a blinding glimpse of the illusions that are keeping us from seeing ourselves and our world clearly. I’m hoping we can stay open to boundless possibilities AND stay grounded in the realities of our culture – to experience the soaring rapture of transcendence without flying too high. And to feel the restorative energy that comes from healing a rupture. Finally, I’m hoping we can find some pleasure in the pathless woods, the lonely shores, the deep sea, and the roar of soothing music. May it be so.
