30 years ago there was a standoff between agencies of the American government and a religious sect in Waco, Texas. The standoff lasted from late February into April. The sect was called the “Branch Davidians” and was a breakoff from the Seventh Day Adventist expression of Christian faith. The standoff resulted in the death of 76 followers of David Koresh who had become the leader of the group. The dead included some children of adherents.
In relation to the 30th anniversary of the standoff, there have been multiple recent documentaries and dramatic retellings released about the incident and about the Branch Davidians. Within American conspiracy theory culture, the Waco standoff has also taken on weight in constructions of conspiracy theories employing anti-government tropes.
There are many troubling and fascinating aspects to the story of the Branch Davidians. Evangelically Departed regularly considers how some theological expressions demonstrate a fearful and divisive foundation. David Koresh’s views of himself and his followers and the world give one stark example. Most expressions of fearful theology do not lead to anything near as terrible as the tragedy at Waco 30 years ago. However, they are still present in much of what passes as Christian theology and they have been used to exercise power and control.
I have not watched any of the recent television productions having to do with the Branch Davidians, but I have been listening to a well reviewed audiobook by Jeff Guinn. The book, called Waco: David Koresh, the Branch Davidians and a Legacy of Rage, traces the history of the sect before addressing the tragic standoff. The reason that the government, and more specifically the ATF, had come to be concerned about the sect was that the compound in Waco was heavily armed, seemingly in preparation for some kind of confrontation.
This confrontation was in fact, exactly what Koresh had been wanting, owing to his theological views.
David Koresh was not the leader’s name at birth. His name, until he changed it, was Irwin Wayne Howell. When he first had contact with the religious group he was rather unexceptional and aimless. He became close with the leader at the time, a person known as the prophet, Lois Roden. Lois Roden had been married to the sect’s leader and when he died she had a vision that she would be the leader and the new prophet. Irwin Howell, though not regarded highly by many others, formed a close relationship with Lois though she was much older than him. In 1985, he travelled to Jerusalem with her and, when they came back, Howell was much more confident and self-assured. He claimed to have been “caught up” in a vision in which he was escorted by angels through heavenly scenes. He claims to have been told that he was “Cyrus,” a biblical king. Another translation of Cyrus is “Koresh.” To this name was added the name of the biblical king David and, thus, Irwin Howell became David Koresh.
The bulk of the vision which Koresh claimed to have experienced had to do with the book of Revelation and the end of the world. In Revelation, there is a scene in which scores of people gathered around the heavenly throne awaiting the opening of scrolls which are to reveal the completion of history. It is only “the Lamb” who is worthy to open the seven seals. Most Christian interpreters see Jesus as the Lamb, but Koresh claimed that it was revealed to him that he was the Lamb. Further, the followers of the Lamb would face opposition and a war from “Babylon” which meant just about any expression of official (and secular) government power. The Lamb and his followers would be killed, but would return as martyrs to usher in the fulfillment of history. There are quite a few more details, but that’s the basic arc of the eschatology of the Branch Davidians.
What happened is terrible and sad and, perhaps, weird. You might think that you would never become caught up in a cult-like sect like the Branch Davidians. However, some of the damaging theological concepts that energize such movements show up in many other religious contexts. They might not be anywhere near as weaponized, but they are still not worth holding onto. When religious leaders employ them we ought to be discriminating and seek more thoughtful and hopeful consideration.
I’ll give some examples from a recent article I came across. The article was intended to be a positive call to see God’s presence and work, even in difficult times. It repeatedly used the concept of revival in saying that, though things might look bleak in terms of faith, there are signs of coming revival. I have nothing against the man who wrote the article. I don’t know him. My interest in mentioning what he wrote is to identify a couple of manifestations of fearful theology and hopeless eschatology that you may recognize as common in many evangelical contexts.
The writer uses the term “remnant” to refer to believers who hold faith in dark times. Remnant here means that there are a relatively few people who, through their belief, values and devotion hold back the present and impending waves of immorality and godlessness. David Koresh thought that the Davidians were the remnant.
There is a biblical concept of the remnant that is worth looking into, but there is a world of difference between speaking of the concept and claiming that your particular group is the remnant. The author of the article refers to “a remnant of believers who shine God’s light in the darkness.” It seems fair to imply that the remnant he identifies includes him and those who believe what he believes. Seeing yourself (and your group) as the remnant can be dangerous. History has proven this over and over again and yet the tendency remains.
Hopeful Christian theology, in contrast to this theology of fear, does not see its adherents as the keepers of the truth and everyone else as part of the darkness.
A second common manifestation of divisive theology is to see yourself or your own group as good, and differing views as evil. The article maintains that evil is drowning people’s values and says that people are looking to be rescued. It mentions an “evil agenda” and gives an example of what this evil looks like. It looks like, “a child being asked to choose their preferred pronoun.” Wherever you stand on a particular issue, defining your view as good and the view of the other as evil is almost always problematic.
There can be a tendency for leaders to identify their own ideals for society as good and opposing ideas as bad or evil. This can happen in religion and in politics. Hopeful theology calls for more critical and self-reflective thinking.
In Christian terms, the love of Jesus is over the whole world and all of creation, it is not the property of one sect or one way of religious understanding.
Seeing yourself as part of the remnant and everyone else as lost or damned is a form of adolescent self-centredness that Christian theology should aim to grow past. Seeing yourself as good and those who hold views opposing yours as agents of evil should not be considered to be thoughtful or responsible Christian leadership.
It is tragic that people willingly followed David Koresh, even at the cost of their lives and the lives of their children. Maybe you would never listen to someone who would go to such terrible extremes. However, you may have had religious leaders, in your own experience, employ these two arguments (1. We are the remnant 2. We represent good against external evil). These arguments have been used in the context of destructive movements, but they also appear in much less extreme contexts. Even there, even in otherwise positive places, they should not be considered as particularly helpful or spiritually mature. They divide people up into us and them. The best of Christian faith calls for better than this.
Are You the Remnant?
In my life time of experience in the Evangelical church, the seeds of fearful theology and hopeless eschatology have established the roots of the system from which every varying branch of evangelical doctrine and dogma – extreme and otherwise – have grown. I officially left the Christian church five years ago. That separation allowed me to see how these roots, and the us and them thinking that springs from it, have infiltrated our society at large. Then I have to wonder which came first? The chicken or the egg? Do we have an innate need to see ourselves as different and therefore better than our neighbor? Is that what leads us to participate in this kind of spiritual toxicity and abuse? Surely, this is why Jesus said the entire gospel can be wrapped up in two commandments: love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. Thank you for your thought provoking piece.
Yes: "In Christian terms, the love of Jesus is over the whole world and all of creation, it is not the property of one sect or one way of religious understanding." I was raised believing the church we went to was the only true religion and everyone else was going to hell. So very, very damaging to all involved. Thanks for standing up for truth and compassion.