Terrorist or Criminal?

Date Published: 02/22/2010

The arrests of two young men for the 2010 East Texas church fires and Joseph Stack setting his own home on fire before flying his small plane into the IRS offices north of Austin are a harsh reminder of the ambiguities surrounding threats to public safety. Should these be considered criminals or terrorists? What about Abdul Mutallab who attempted to bring down a plane over Detroit? Are foreigners terrorists and US residents criminals? Are those who operate alone criminals and those who belong to an organization hostile to the US terrorists? Does it make a difference if the motive is political or if it seems to be religious? Should perpetrators of violence who do not belong to a military organization be tried in military or civilian courts?

The answers to these questions may be influenced more by social-political presuppositions than by consistent principles, not so much because we humans are inherently or intentionally inconsistent or unprincipled but because the issues and forces at work in today’s world are tangled and confusing.

Underlying this confusion lies a deep insecurity about personal and public safety. Out of that fear rises a cry for guarantees of safety. Angry questions ask how Abdul Mutallab or Nidal Malik Hasan of the Ft. Hood shooting get through all the security screens? Why can’t the FAA or somebody keep the sky safe? What took the police so long to arrest the church burning suspects? Bureaucratic ineptitude? Political correctness gone awry? Lack of concern for the public by public servants? In both implied and overt criticism is an unrealistic expectation of guaranteed safety.

Yes, unrealistic! Even with thorough security and intelligence measures that catch 99.99% of terrorist threats, guaranteeing that a small, stealthy cell might not be able to slip through the net and wreak havoc is impossible. Even harder to prevent is a lone individual using everyday materials to perpetrate violence on many, whether philosophically motivated or a “crazy.” Certainly not everyone who is angry at the IRS could be caught and locked up before setting their own home afire and crashing their own plane into an office building within an hour of a threatening internet posting.

This does not mean abandoning efforts to protect the security of the country, nor does it mean not trying to learn from close calls and even “failures.” But it most emphatically does mean not to trust that any human effort can guarantee 100% safety and security. One of the most unlearned lessons of Viet Nam (and of the Soviet Union’s ambitions in Afghanistan) is that the most powerful military in the world cannot insure victory or even security.

This realization should not be a surprise to people of faith who know and take the Bible seriously. God alone is a reliable refuge, and taking refuge in God does not exempt people of faith from the harsh realities of life in our broken world. The theme permeates all of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation but is well summarized in Psalm 33:16-17, 20. “A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save. … Our soul waits for the LORD; he is our help and shield.”