Giving Religion a Bad Name

The shoot-out and siege in Waco, Texas have raised the issue of religious fanaticism in the mind of America. The subsequent capture of a suspected "Islamic fundamentalist" in the bombing of the World Trade Center and the gunning down of an abortion clinic doctor in Pensacola, Florida, allegedly by a "Christian fundamentalist," have kept it in the center of public attention.

When such violent fanaticism rears its ugly head, a standard response gushes forth from the media and is present, implicitly or explicitly, in most public discussions on the issue. This is the conventional wisdom: It is dangerous to become too religious. The best advice is to stay as "normal" and mainstream as possible.

Religious commitment itself becomes suspect, especially if it is strong and life-defining, moves one away from dominant cultural values, and creates community. The answer to any kind of religious commitment seems to be secularism, or at least religion with huge doses of moderation, allowing us to swallow most of society's secular consensus.

BUT THE PROBLEM with the cultic violence in Texas and Florida, and perhaps New York, is not that it's too religious. On the contrary, these militant fundamentalists are not religious enough. In reality, they are not truly religious at all.

If by "religious" we mean the authentic faith traditions from which the fanatics claim to come, then their religious fidelity can rightly be tested by those traditions.

Does David Koresh, leader of Waco's Branch Davidians, remind us of the Jesus Christ who he claims to be? Does his tyrannical character exemplify Jesus' style of servant leadership? Does calling every woman he wants to sleep with his "wife," including 11- and 12-year-olds, square with the Sermon on the Mount? Does amassing an arsenal of lethal weaponry and threatening the lives of countless people follow the steps of the nonviolent savior who chose the way of the cross? Does making wild apocalyptic predictions about the end of the world and then justifying his crazy behavior on the basis of those predictions show his obedience to the Bible, as he claims, when biblical teaching explicitly forbids making such predictions?

David Koresh is not Jesus Christ returned; he is not even a follower of Jesus Christ. He is instead misguided, confused, paranoid, egotistical, maniacal, seemingly mean-spirited, and, above all, very dangerous.

The circumstances and details of the World Trade Center bombing are much less clear. But already the words "Islamic," "fundamentalists," and "terrorists" are being used almost interchangeably again. Recently, a Washington, D.C. talk show host suggested that people "from those parts of the world" need to be checked much more carefully before being let into the United States. The specter of "Islamic fundamentalists" could easily replace our lost "communist" enemy to justify all manner of interventionist sins, with an enormous potential for fueling very dangerous and destructive racism.

Here again, does the Quran justify dynamiting an office building crowded with innocent people in reaction to the real grievances of Western colonialism (if indeed that proves to be a motive)? Again, the answer is no, but the tragedy is that few Americans could even answer the question given our narrow and distorted understanding of Islam.

And how can a commitment to being "pro-life" become a justification for shooting somebody in the back as they walk into an abortion clinic? Groups that target and harass individuals do bear some responsibility for escalating the violence, despite the disclaimers of their leaders regarding the Pensacola incident. As long as some of the most vocal pro-life advocates seem to care only for unborn lives, and not for others as well, they will continue to lack moral and religious consistency.

KORESH IS SAID to love movies, guns, and television, especially MTV, and he likes to call CNN to announce his personal prophecies. How many times has Koresh's deranged mind seen television and movie scenarios of apocalyptic violence virtually identical to the one he is now playing out?

The mad bombers and terrorists of all stripes are perhaps our most dangerous media junkies. In turn, the media depend upon these militant fanatics for their hottest stories. The symbiotic relationship between them is truly frightening and, I would charge, a causal factor in the violence. If we want to affix blame, isn't it time to hold our violence-crazed media culture up for some serious accountability?

True religion should not be blamed for violent fanaticism done in the name of religion. Yet the religious community could and should take responsibility for trying to resolve such conflicts peacefully. Wouldn't that be in keeping with our true vocation?

What might have happened if church leaders and members from Waco encircled the Ranch Apocalypse compound with an unarmed vigil of prayer, dialogue, discernment, and nonviolent conflict resolution? I don't know. But what different dynamic might have been possible if a nonviolent army of Christian peacemakers had surrounded the place instead of flak-jacketed federal agents with their guns blazing and hungry reporters with their cameras whirring? That might have been the most truly religious response of all to "religious fanaticism."

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners.