Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, by Mark Juergensmeyer
University of California Press, 2000
243 pages
Amazon.com link (3rd edition)
Reviewer’s note: This book review is about the first edition of Juergensmeyer’s book Terror in the Mind of God published in 2000. The third edition published in 2003 incorporates information from the September 11 attacks. I have not read that revised edition. This book review only covers material in the 2000 edition of Juergensmeyer’s book.
In his 2000 book Terror in the Mind of God, Mark Juergensmeyer explores the relationship between religion and violence. He begins by examining a number of case studies, including
- Radical right-wing Christianity in America
- Protestant-Catholic issues in Northern Ireland
- Jewish terrorists and assassinations in Israel
- Islamic terrorism
- Sikh violence in India
- The Tokyo subway nerve gas attack
In all these cases, Juergensmeyer notes that the sects that turn to violence are marginal and are not accepted by the mainstream religions to which they claim affinity. On the other hand, the mainstream religious community can often understand the motivations of the terrorists, if not approve of the methods.
Juergensmeyer identifies several key qualities that tend to lead to religiously-motivated violence:
- A worldview that interprets history as a cosmic war between good and evil. The struggle is not against earthly institutions, but against heavenly powers. Often this happens when a culture fears for its existence, like the Sikhs fear becoming subsumed into India’s dominant Hindu culture.
- The unavailability of other options, such as the democratic process, to achieve one’s goals.
- The satanization and dehumanization of enemies, as when Islamic fanatics paint America and all Americans as evil, or when radical right-wing groups in America refer to all non-Aryans as mudpeople.
As for the terrorist acts themselves, Juergensmeyer interprets them as performance violence. They are not intended to directly achieve one’s goals. They are symbols of a culture war. When Paul Hill murdered an abortion doctor, he wasn’t expecting to significantly reduce the number of abortions performed in America; rather, he felt compelled to act to send a message that abortion is murder, and that deadly force is justified to defend the unborn.
The weakest part of Juergensmeyer’s book is when he tries to interpret terrorism as a form of male sexual aggression. That, and his continual attempts to paint Timothy McVeigh as a religiously-motivated terrorist. I have just read two McVeigh biographies, and Juergensmeyer is deliberately misrepresenting McVeigh’s motives for the Oklahoma City bombing. It is true McVeigh had contact with the radical Christian militia groups–notably the Christian Identity movement–but Juergensmeyer does not distinguish between contact and motivation. He sprinkles his book with unspecified comments about McVeigh’s associations and links to Christian Identity–links which are often nothing more than an innocuous phone call, but you wouldn’t know that from Juergensmeyer’s insinuations. Then he goes into detail about Christian Identity’s stated motivations for religious violence, and makes the unwarranted assumption that McVeigh shared those motivations.
I don’t know why Juergensmeyer felt he needed to stretch the truth about McVeigh. Not all terrorism is religiously motivated, a point which Juergensmeyer admits more than once. There are plenty of other terrorist incidents that can be legitimately tied to Christian Identity groups, so there is no need to conjure up a fictional version of McVeigh. It calls Juergensmeyer’s credibility into account. Even worse, in his public speeches Juergensmeyer is now apparently using McVeigh as a counterpoint to Osama bin Laden, claiming that McVeigh is as “Christian” as bin Laden is “Muslim.” That’s a lie, of course. McVeigh’s motivations were wholly secular (although his crime was enabled and encouraged by a fringe group of Christian lunatics), whereas bin Laden’s fatwa against America specifically uses religion to justify violence.
Let me preface my comment by saying that I am from Oklahoma, and remember quite vividly the day the Murrah building was blown up. I went to downtown Oklahoma City and actually saw the building after it had been bombed.
I do not doubt that McVeigh was involved in the bombing. But there is much more to it than most Americans know about. That is key to understanding (or at least try to understand) the motivation behind the attack. We all know there was a conspiracy, by virtue of the fact that Terry Nichols was a convicted and admitted co-conspirator. But the conspiracy has to be much broader than that. How do I know this? I would credit most of this knowledge to the hard work of the local OKC TV news. You would be amazed to learn the information they were able to uncover. These days most media groups don’t dare dig deeper than the official account, but these people did. The footage of their newscasts is still available on Google video. Here are some interesting facts and tidbits about the bombing. Keep in mind, I am not posing any specific theories about this, just some of the evidence of a broader conspiracy.
*Federal agents whose offices were located in the building were conveniently absent. ATF agents were waiting down the street in full uniform and rushed the scene shortly after the bombing.
*Federal agents reported to local news finding at least two other bombs that were dismantled while they were live on the scene.
*An FBI analyst found that it would have been impossible for the Ryder truck bomb to have created that much damage by itself without causing a huge crater in the earth. There was no no crater.
*There were originally two John Does, one sketch resembled McVeigh. The other resembled someone who was described by witnesses as being someone of Arab descent. After the case was being made against McVeigh John Doe II was forgotten.
*Surveillance footage, allegedly showing both John Does, has never been released.
*Martin Keating, brother of former FBI agent and Oklahoma governor Frank Keating, wrote a novel prior to the bombing called “The Final Jihad”. The main character in the “fictional” book in named Tom MacVeigh.
One of the ideas that Juergensmeyer did not articulate well which may help one understand why he links McVeigh with Christian Identity (as well as bin Laden) is that the appeal to religion is a facade. The real motivation (i.e. the latent not the manifest ideology) is purely sociocultural and/or political. Their usage of a particular set of religious beliefs is intentional subterfuge to (1) force the creation of a global religious community (e.g. the Muslim ummah) and (2) to make a larger pool of resources by sympathizing with what would otherwise be non-violent religious radicals. With all of this said, however, I do feel that McVeigh’s actions do not mesh with what I just mentioned (which I am synthesizing from Olivier Roy’s Globalized Islam, Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation, Mark Taylor’s After God, and Hardt and Negri’s Empire). If his connection to CI was stronger and more militant, I think Juergensmeyer would have a much better case.
cchrisr, thanks for commenting. I read Terror in the Mind of God after you mentioned it on the forum last year. It was a useful book, thanks for suggesting it.
I tend to agree with you that the appeal to religion is a facade. Sociocultural and political ideas are usually the driving cause. Al Qaeda would not be able to recruit terrorists were it not for the political grievances and culture clashes in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden appeals to religion, but the appeals only serve to give a semblance of meaning and sanction to feelings that already exist.
When it comes to Timothy McVeigh, it’s hard to make that same argument. Like you alluded to, Juergensmeyer’s case would be stronger if there was clear evidence that McVeigh was motivated by the religious aspects of the Christian Identity movement. He never appealed to religion in anything he said. He never showed any religious beliefs, certainly not any radical ones. McVeigh claimed to be an atheist. So bin Laden and McVeigh are both motivated by political factors, yes. They have that in common. But bin Laden uses religious rhetoric and McVeigh did not. Osama bin Laden can be called a Muslim (and then we can debate whether or not he is a good Muslim) but McVeigh cannot be called a Christian unless we ignore the plain facts.
I have a longstanding worrying question related to this book title: “Terror in the Mind of God”. Having asked many Christians and a Rabbi, I remain very perplexed and quite upset about what lies behind this question. I really need someone to help me because the root answer is absolutely fundamental not only to understanding the Bible’s history and interpretation, but today’s world crisis and our stance in relation to, for example, the Jewish/Palestinian struggle which has continued since David and Goliath’s era. My question is ‘Was Joshua a Terrorist?’ considering what he did at Jericho and Ai to men, women, and children. When answering my question, please remember that you are dealing with the very root and origins of our Christian Faith.
That’s a loaded question. The term terrorist it not neutral. It implies a value judgement that the terrorist is evil and immoral. So when you ask if Joshua was a terrorist, you’re really asking whether he was committing evil, immoral acts. From the biblical account we see that Joshua was obeying the Lord’s explicit instructions. Thus Joshua was not committing evil acts. Or, maybe you want to argue that God’s instructions to Joshua were evil, but that opens up a huge theological can of worms.
“My question is ‘Was Joshua a Terrorist?’ considering what he did at Jericho and Ai to men, women, and children. When answering my question, please remember that you are dealing with the very root and origins of our Christian Faith.”
This is a very good and difficult question to answer. Certainly many of the European settlers to the Americas adopted Joshua’s conquest as a model for their “manifest destiny”. The difference is that one genocide was authorized, while the other was not. All modern examples of similar such genocides are not directly ordered by God, although they may represent his judgment. God made the Hebrew people his agents of judgment on these heathen nations in order that they possess the land he promised them.
Governmental authorities still serve as agents of judgment in general, in the sense that they exact retribution on evildoers (1 Peter 2:14). But I think we have to make a distinction between this and God specifically ordering the deaths of people, as he did in the Old Testament. We have no biblical evidence to suggest that such God-authorized warfare is being carried out by his followers in this dispensation.
3For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
(2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
So in this era those emulating Joshua would be terrorists, because we know that such acts of war (or terror) would contradict the revealed will of God in the scriptures. We must remember that the stories in the Old Testament were examples written “FOR our admonition” (1 Corinthians 10:11). This is different from them being written TO us as Christians.
The Jewish perspective will likely be much different. Their tradition obviously does not include the New Testament, but perhaps more importantly it is rooted in Talmudic tradition - perhaps even more than it is rooted in the Torah. And I don’t mean any offense in saying this, but with respect to holy war the Talmudic scriptures are closer than the Qu’ran than the New Testament. That’s why I personally am uninvolved with the politics of the Jewish/Palestinian struggle. I don’t feel the same “Christian” (or Zionist rather) obligation to the Jewish people and their politics that some Christians seem to feel.
I hope you can understand my previous post with all the dreadful typos. My apologies.
I very much appreciate the rapid replies. But nobody has yet seen my dilemma. Speaking from my Conservative Christian background, of course I accept that God is sovereign and chooses whom he will; but try telling that the a Muslim in a “holy war”, purporting to kill in the name of Allah (is this the same god, by the way?
Chris A is saying that God authorised the killing of these innocent people, but I know that is what the Bible says. Here is my heart-rending problem. When I asked the Rabbi how could he justify Joshua’s action, there was no answer.
Paul,
Joshua had a very clear and direct supernatural mandate from God that many people confirmed and saw. If we believe the biblical account, than Joshua was not merely relying on tradition or history (like the Crusades and Islam), but the quantifiable voice and demonstrable power of God.
As for the reasons, God gave very clear reasons. He was explicit about the sins of these people and the fact that they deserved judgment. God chose to exercise that judgment in asking Joshua to do what he did. The bible demonstrates that God warned these people for many generations and they refused to repent. He gave them ample time.
We also know from God’s character and other biblical accounts that all who were killed were guilty. God will not punish the Righteous with the wicked and also commanded the Israelites to do the same (Exodus 23:7). We can be assured that God was fully justified and consistent in these actions.
Joshua’s actions cannot be justified without appealing to a religious belief. Joshua’s actions were not “terrorist” actions because it fell more along the lines of a war between two bodies of governance–city-states (even if one had no territory). If Joshua had not kept the land he conquered and settled there (but rather continued to roam as a nomad), it could be construed as “terrorism.” I think Deleuze’s hat tip to the Mongols and Khan represent the best example of “terrorists” (especially as described in some of Kafka’s stories). Terrorists are nomadic, without “territory”, without a “nation.”
Maybe my posting has hit a raw nerve.
Having already stated my credentials, it must be realised that I am playing “devil’s advocate” and am fully aware of the views so far expressed. This approach will not wash with the “outside world”. Maybe the killing of the babies and children was covered by the commandment about “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me”? This was just too bad for the innocent kids involved.
The argument that settlement upon the land (therefore, it is argued, overcoming the label terrorists) was by God’s decree is difficult to put over to the modern mind. The vanquished inhabitants in Joshua’s time became doomed in the same way as the modern Palestinians were after the six day war of 1967. It is little wonder that some modern-day dispossessed Palestinians engage in what they consider God-commanded killings in retaliation. We call these killers terrorists but their opponents are not.
Having set this problem before you, it will be best now to stand back for a time and hope for some telling arguments.
“…but try telling that the a Muslim in a “holy war”, purporting to kill in the name of Allah (is this the same god, by the way?”
Both Muslims and adherents to Judaism (notice I didn’t say Jews) have a very jaded and distorted view of God. If we define God in terms of his character as made clear in the scriptures, he cannot be the same God as the Muslim or Judaic gods. This is made obvious by other religious texts found in the Quran and the Talmud that contradict the God of the Old and New Testaments. Many Christians know this about Islam, but not about Judaism. Plus there is always the stinging threat of being labeled an anti-Semite for such a suggestion, but it is true nonetheless. When one rejects the truth all that is left is a lie.
Paul Myerson: “Maybe my posting has hit a raw nerve.”
Not really, at least not for me. I did find the question disingenuous. The way you phrased it makes it a trick question because it’s clear that you’ve already decided that Joshua’s actions are indefensible. That leaves three unpalatable alternatives: 1) Joshua was evil, 2) God is evil, or 3) the Bible is unreliable. I reject the premise that Joshua’s actions are evil.
“This was just too bad for the innocent kids involved.”
The idea of an innocent person isn’t biblical. Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned.” It makes no exceptions for children. God has the authority and moral right to punish sinners. I don’t think we can understand that until we understand the seriousness of sin. Romans 7 says sin is “exceedingly sinful” and that it bears “fruit for death”. If we’re still viewing people–even children–as innocent, then we haven’t accepted a biblical view of sin.
“The idea of an innocent person isn’t biblical. Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned.” It makes no exceptions for children. God has the authority and moral right to punish sinners. I don’t think we can understand that until we understand the seriousness of sin. Romans 7 says sin is “exceedingly sinful” and that it bears “fruit for death”. If we’re still viewing people–even children–as innocent, then we haven’t accepted a biblical view of sin.”
I completely agree. Had Joshua’s actions not been the express judgment of God, then these people might be considered innocent in the sense that the killing was unprovoked or at least undeserved. But this was obviously God’s judgment, and he judges righteously.