Christian Terrorism

It was bound to come up, and it has, though perhaps not as loudly as we might have feared. The Washington Post steers clear of editorializing too much in their article, which consists mainly of quotes of experts in militia groups that use Christianity as a legitimation.

Rudolph seems to have some connection to a white supremacist group called "Christian Identity." They believe that northern Europeans are descended from the 10 lost tribes of Israel, and that modern Jews are imposters. Interestingly enough, InstantReplay applauds the group's 19th-century inspiration, British ministers John Wilson and Edward Hine, who first propogated the theory as a justification for colonialism. I don't applaud their inspiring white supremacists or coming up with a crackpot theory, but for realizing that colonialism needed a justification, something that never occurred to most people out conquering the world. Of course, maybe if they'd read the Bible it would have occurred to them that sending missionaries and ambassadors is good, but sending armies and pirates is bad.

Anyway, the question stands: is Rudolph a Christian terrorist?

First of all, let us presume guilt. If he's innocent, then the answer is obviously no, but for the sake of discussion, let's violate his civil rights and consider him guilty on all counts.

What criteria do we place on labeling a form of terrorism religious? First, I would say the act must be directly motivated by religious conviction, obviously, and not just carried out by someone who happens to have been born into a specific faith. Second, I would say the individual must have a modicum of sanity; clinically insane people are a distinct issue from religious extremists. Third, and most controversially, I think that at least a good number of teachers and believers in the faith must consider him a fellow believer. If Christianity, as defined by its adherents, does not consider an individual a Christian, it is unhelpful for the rest of society to accept the individual's self-asserted association to an unwilling group. This point deserves to be qualified by noting that this does not mean that the other members of the faith support his act - they may consider him an errant believer, and it does not mean "true Christianity" or "true Islam" as defined by their respective holy texts, but rather practiced and imperfect human expressions of the faiths. Fourth, their must be at least a minority within the faith (again, accepted by the faith as belonging) who support the act.

In the case of Rudolph, we can reasonably assume that religious or other ideological conviction (the article strongly suggests racism) motivated him. If it was indeed religious, he fulfils the first criterion.

Rudolph's survival skills strongly suggest his sanity; I would question any jury that found so resourceful a man insane. Obviously he has bad judgment and some nutty ideas - the question is whether he has reason, and I think he clearly does.

I think Rudolph, however, eminently fails to meet the last two criteria. While those in his area certainly identify with him, I don't think any leaders in the country would identify him as a Christian, let alone support his act. The "Christian Identity" militia/sect is not regarded as Christian. I do not, of course, have poll stats, and most Christians do not have more than a cursory knowledge of him. Certainly a tiny minority alone support his actions.

This is not the case, however, with Islamic terrorism. Islam has a history of violence beginning well before church-sanctioned violence became commonplace in Christendom, despite Christianity's 600-year seniority. The militant spirit has survived in a number of forms within Islam, and that faith is undergoing an identity crisis that will determine whether it becomes a collaborator with the New World Order or a rejectionist opponent thereof. Many Muslims would quickly and firmly identify the September 11 hijackers, Osama Bin Laden, Palestinian suicide bombers and others as Muslims, even if they repudiated their actions and interpretations. In Christianity, I identify many as Christians - the Spanish Inquisition for instance - who are completely unchristlike and unregenerate. They are not true Christians, but in the social sense they are, for lack of a better word (well, I would use the phrase "nominal Christians"). However, in Islam, unlike in Christianity, there exists strong, measurable support for violent measures to oppose the West. Here the parallel in Christianity would be the numerous Christians - nominal and otherwise - who supported violent action in Iraq. Yes, we wore uniforms, but ultimately it was a case of deciding that it was for the greater good to kill some people. This argument is easily applied to abortionists, whose death may seem to save unborn lives. InstantReplay, however, rejects any violence in the name of Christianity, because our Bible clearly states that we don't struggle in physical but in spiritual realms, and Christ even healed one of those who came to arrest Him. I support non-violent action against abortion mills, including damage to property and illegal trespassing. However, my pro-life principles extend even to those whom I consider evildoers.