Does serious religious faith inevitably lead to violence? In particular, what does piety in Christianity look like? Is there definitive characteristics of serious faith, and does that involve violence?
There are some who argue that serious religious faith inevitably leads to violence. As a Christian, I will speak from the Christian perspective. I know that individuals of various faiths will have clear answers to these opinions. If you are interested in their opinions, make some time to research their authorities, and look at their statements on the matter.
This post is in answer to some who hold the opinion that serious religious faith always leads to fanaticism. It is also an investigation into the nature of true and good religious faith.
Before the argument starts, I would like to note that fanaticism is very hard to define. The Oxford dictionary defines fanaticism as “extreme beliefs or behaviour, especially in connection with religion or politics”. The problem with this definition is that it does not make clear what extreme is. Extreme is typically used interchangeably with “undesired”. People would not say Mother Theresa was a fanatic, although her beliefs and behaviour were “extreme” in the sense of being “unusual”. Therefore, when discussing religious fanaticism, I will speak about its violent aspect typically associated with terrorist organizations, the Crusades, the Inquisition etc. Keep in mind that public discourse regarding these matters are often not built on facts, but I will not further elaborate.
A curious paradox lies at the heart of Christianity. The cause of sin and suffering, the Fall of Man, was motivated by a desire to “be like God”. Adam took, the world mourned evermore. The story of the tower of Babel also describes men wanting to reach to the heavens, and God confusing their languages to halt this. On the other hand, their is a call to “Be Holy as I am Holy”. Jews, and then later Christians, were called to imitate God. Upon first thought, how is it possible that that the desire to be like God is both the cause of sin and suffering, while being encouraged as a central part of piety? The important clause is the how. How do you want to be like God? As both God and man, Christ is set as the example that we should follow. The Scriptures give a clear message in this regard:
“…let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Hebrews 12:1b-2
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phillipians 2:5-8
In all forms of Christianity, especially Orthodox Christianity, their is the idea of Christ-likeness. To imitate Christ and to become like Him. The passages above reveal central qualities of Christ and Christ-likeness in individuals. Comparing these qualities to the qualities of fanaticism will help us to see if Christianity is inherently violent.
One note should be made: I will continue discussing a very specific doctrine in Christianity, skeptics might argue that the passages that are quoted are just “cherry picking the good parts”. They might ask about the passages that call for stoning criminals or other passages in the Bible that call for seemingly abhorrent actions. I answer that they are “cherry picking the bad parts”. The Scripture should be understood in its entirety and in its cultural context. Christ’s life, death and resurrection is very clearly portrayed as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. In other words, the whole Old Testament should be understood in light of Christ. If Christianity has Christ at its centre, looking at Christ-likeness will be valuable in testing Scriptural faith against religious fanaticism.
Three qualities I will focus on specifically in this post. Christ was able to see a joy ahead of time, and was willing to suffer greatly to obtain that joy. The suffering he took was a profoundly individual, and voluntary action. Christ-likeness is rooted in the voluntary choice of the individual to lay their lives down for the good. Paul also states that “if Christ was not raised, our faith is in vain”. This implies that if the goal suffered for is not real, then the suffering was meaningless. Paul even calls Christians the people “most to be pitied” if the aim of the Christian faith is not real. This is because Christ-likeness calls us to voluntarily take up suffering for the sake of others. If there is no reward or outcome for this suffering, you will have wasted your life. Importantly, the suffering of Christ was not brought on Him by circumstances, but by His will. He chose it. We are called to “Be Holy as He is Holy”.
Pause, and think about this for a moment.
In summary of the previous paragraph: The voluntary nature of Christ-likeness, the fact that it should be based on something real and true, and the fact that Christ-likeness lives for the sake of others show defining differences between religious fanaticism and Christ-likeness. Let me explain:
Everyone who believes their own faith to be true, and exclusive, desires others to come to the same conviction. But, true Christ-likeness can only be voluntary. It can never be forced. Christ convinced others by miraculous signs, arguments from Scripture and reason and appeals to their conscience. When Peter sliced off the ear of a Roman soldier, he was rebuked “If you live by the sword, you die by the sword”. This is because force always undermines the voluntary nature of Christ-likeness. As soon as you try to coerce using external motivation, Christ-likeness is lost. Their is no way to manipulate any one into Christ-likeness, as it is inherently voluntary.
Fanaticism, on the other hand, such as Crusaders conquering the Holy Land in the middle ages, or the 9/11 terrorists, have no regard for the will of others. They desired certain outcomes and were willing to remove all obstacles by force. A believer who had true regard for faith, would understand that unbelievers could only come to faith voluntarily, and would therefore not benefit from any coercion.
The second marker of Christ-likeness, is its roots in reality. The Scriptures never make a claim that we should have faith for the sake of faith. Jesus is called “the way, the truth and the life”. St Augustine famously said: “All truth is God’s truth”. Further, one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not give false witness”. On the other hand, Satan is called “the father of lies”. These, and many other passages, give clear indication that Christianity values truth highly. Claims that “faith is believing what is contrary to evidence” is merely making an untrue claim regarding the nature of faith. “If Christ was not raised, our faith is in vain”.
Fanaticism on the other hand despises truth. Not outwardly, as many violent fanatics claim to have the universal unique access to truth. They claim to know what is true and good. The difference between fanaticism and faith is that fanaticism does not allow outside information to affect or challenge its beliefs. As it is based on a made up fantasy, it rejects reality. Often fanaticism is rooted in conspiracy and distrust. It denies the common reason given to man, and the open revelation of Scripture.
The last important aspect of Christ-likeness, is that it is focused on others. The greatest commandment is to “love thy neighbour as thyself”. That means to desire and to act for the ultimate good of the other person. Love is rooted in the will. Love does not happen to us, it must be chosen. Often with great pain and sorrow. For the best and for the other. We see this most clearly in the life of Christ. He “endured the cross for the joy set before Him”. What was Christ’s “joy set before Him” as mentioned in the quote from Hebrews above?
After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Rev 7:9
The suffering of Christ was so that all nations could flourish in the fullest sense. We are called to suffer so that others may continue to live and flourish. That means to live and to live well. The love of Christ helps others to live and to fulfill their desires, as long as their desires are good. “It is not love to encourage a man in his adultery” – St Ambrose (paraphrased). So too is it not love to encourage a man in his evil desires. In other words, Christian piety exhorts us to encourage desires that lead to life, and to discourage or change desires (as far as possible) that lead to death. Always bear in mind that the voluntary nature of the faith should be taken into account in this regard.
Fanaticism does not care about the other, but only for itself and its own salvation. Fanaticism does not care about all nations. Only about the specific group and their goals. There might be some sort of brotherly love in the fanatic group. Another important distinction is how fanaticism treats human desires. Contrary to Christ-likeness, it might even encourage desires that lead to death if it helps the group’s goals. Or it might make no effort to positively reinforce others. As mentioned in the paragraph above. Indoctrination is more often than not the name of the game.
These differences have been made clear in history.
With racial justice in the USA, the stark difference between the philosophies of Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) and Malcolm X illustrate these differences clearly. In most of the 1900s, USA was racially segregated. In 1954-1968 there was a lot of public outcry to end racial segregation and give freedom to all races in America. Two important figures in this movement was Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian minister, and Malcolm X, a Muslim activist. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for non-violence, as he had a concept of Christ-likeness. In his mind there is no value in political freedom if you are a slave to your own desires. Malcolm X, on the other hand, could only look to the political freedom of his own group. He was unable to transcend tribalism and advocated for violent revolution. The contrast becomes clear when you read Malcolm X’s 1963 speech “Message to the Grassroots” and compare it to an interview with John Lewis (who was part of MLK’s movement). If this is a matter of value to you, or if you have been impacted by the recent events, take the time to read the Malcolm X article and to watch the interview with John Lewis.
In Malcolm X’s speech, he clearly criticizes the civil rights movement for not being “revolutionary”. He makes a clear “us vs them” distinction. He does not want the ruling class to voluntarily give up the inequality, but to violently take it. He advocates for revolutions, such as the American, French and Russian revolutions. Revolutions for “land” gained by “bloodshed”. Judging truth is difficult in this regard, as most political activists choose which facts to share. It is part of public speaking. So I will not make comment on the truth of Malcolm X’s claims, I will assume they are based on fact for now.
And what we have foremost in common is that enemy — the white man. He’s an enemy to all of us.
Malcolm X, Message to the Grassroots
Lastly, Malcolm X was not interested in the moral regeneration of white men. He was focused on his group (which is most non-white people) and his group alone. He was not considering what is best for himself and for all others involved.
On the other hand, in the interview with John Lewis, we see the clear focus on non-violence of the civil rights movement. You can also read MLK’s famous “I have a dream” speech. MLK advocated for moral degeneracy. Like Christ, he tried to convince through an appeal to conscience. He also stated the disgusting nature of racism in America in the 1960s, he was aware of reality, but did not make it worse than it was. Lastly, he appealed to a global brotherhood. He was also concerned for the good of the white people, although they have sinned greatly against them.
In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred….And they (white people) have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our (black people) freedom.
Martin Luther King Jr., I have a Dream (parenthesis added)
In the two movements, ask yourself the following: Did the movement try to use force, or did they make appeals to conscience? Were they rooted in truth or falsehood? Were they focused on their neighbour’s good (independent of the neighbour’s actions)?
This is important as it speaks to our deepest needs of freedom, justice and salvation. We forget that one cannot be free if you are not free from yourself. So we fight for freedom in the world, but in the process become enslaved to our desires. We want justice for the ills done to us, with a disregard of justice to those who have offended. We want salvation, but often our idea of our problem is misled. Christ is an example to all people. He walked as each man and woman should walk, not trying to grasp divinity, but to lay it down. And in laying our lives down, we are glorified as we become like Christ.
In answer to the two questions asked in the beginning: “How should men be like God?” and “Is violent fanaticism intrinsic to the Christian faith?”
We should be like God in the sense that we should lay ourselves down so that He can magnify us. God never grasped to reach Godhood. He merely was God. When Adam and Eve grasped the fruit to try to be like God, they were very unlike God (as He never grasped for Godhood).
Finally, Christian faith cannot be intrinsically violent if it is based on Christ. Therefore, those who have acted violently for the Christian faith we quite far from their faith. We should not see them as examples, as they acted completely contrary to their example, Christ. Violent fanaticism should have no place in human society. Rather, appeals to conscience based on reality for the good of others should rule all our public discourse.
The Substantial Life 