The Fanatic or Saint - How do we judge?

May 11, 2025

Today’s first two readings speak of people who stand up for their beliefs.  But what is the difference between the fanatic who stands up for what s/he believes, and the great soul  who stands up for what s/he believes? For both are willing to go to great lengths in this regard, even at times to die for their beliefs.

For example, the Jewish religious establishment (in large part) considered Jesus as a rabble rouser, a fanatic, who was taking people away from the true understanding of Judaism,  but history has vindicated Jesus in the eyes of most of the world.  Godse, the one who killed Gandhi was condemned across the board in India in earlier times as a fanatic Hindu who could not bear Gandhi’s defence of Muslim rights, but in recent times, in the eyes of some, especially among the Hindu rightwing, he is now seen as a hero. Was Yasser Arafat a fanatical terrorist as he was initially made out to be, or the legitimate voice of the Palestinians, as he was considered later?  The list could go on and on.

 

How do we decide?  And why is it that there are such contradictory responses from different people.  Perhaps we may get an insight from the prophecy of Simeon that was uttered when Jesus was taken to be circumcised: “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel ….. so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed” (Luke 2:34-35)

 

And perhaps that is exactly it.  Our responses to such ‘divisive’ persons is nothing else but our own inner value systems being revealed.  So when I read that the Buddha left his wife and child suddenly, and went out to seek a way to overcome sorrow, I may condemn him for his irresponsibility and cruelty to his loved ones, or I may honour him for his commitment to what he felt called to do - and what I choose is heavily dependent on what I think is the more important value.  Or when I read of Mohammad going to war to spread his message, I may deride him as a fanatical jihadist or as a messenger of God who was trying to remove the scourge of idolatrous worship. Or when I hear the story of Rama (in the Hindu religious epic Ramayana) who even renounced his wife despite knowing her innocence, for the sake of fulfilling his dharma (duty) as a king, I may speak of him as ‘purushottam’ (i.e. perfect man) or as one who did not have the courage to stand up for the truth. And when I learn about Jesus who unleashed verbal violence on the Jewish religious leadership, and who strode into the temple and whipped the legitimate vendors out of the courtyard, I may consider him a madman drunk with belief in his own claim that he had been sent by God, or as truly the Messiah, the Christ.

 

But aren’t the inner values of most human beings generally the same? For instance I would doubt that there would be any human being (including those we consider fanatics or terrorists) who does not value justice, or honesty, or love and so on, in his/her personal life and in his/her personal relationships.  And yet, despite sharing these same values, we may choose differently when we are faced with situations where we HAVE to make a choice. So when a woman is sexually abused, and becomes pregnant, then we might debate as to whether she should save the unborn life in her womb, or whether to save herself when we are quite sure that (in her milieu) bringing such a pregnancy to term would mean the destruction of her own future life.  

 

An ethical dilemma is not a dilemma  where one has to choose between right and wrong, but between right and right, or between a greater wrong and a lesser wrong. Choosing  between right and wrong is not difficult - even if we may find it difficult to follow through in action.  On the other hand, in the case of a woman with a forced and unwanted pregnancy, we are not choosing between the evil/wrong of killing the unborn child and the good/right of not killing it, but between two ‘goods’ - not killing a child, and not destroying a woman’s life. At such times, what helps us choose, is the value hierarchy that we consciously or unconsciously espouse.  So in their personal value hierarchy, pro-lifers place the value of the unborn life above the right of a woman to choose what is good for her own life, while the pro-choicers reverse the hierarchy.

 

So who is right and who is wrong?  Or is there nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2). This is a philosophical stance that is found reflected in the relativism espoused by many in today’s world and is known as post-modernism. This approach to life argues that there are no objective moral standards that apply universally.   I find this post-modernistic approach quite problematic primarily for three reasons.  First, I cannot believe that certain moral values, like justice, for instance, is not a universally accepted moral principle for all. Of course, we may disagree as to how this justice is to be achieved, but does anybody really question the value of justice? Secondly, according to me, to claim that “there is no universal principle applicable to all” is itself self-contradictory, for if we accept that principle, then even that principle must not be true. So such a principle suffers from the logical fallacy of retorsion.  Thirdly, this post-modernistic philosophy of life quite easily lends itself to us choosing whatever is favourable to us, because WE (naturally influenced by our own current pressures or inclinations) think it is right.  For me this is dangerous, and it is precisely to avoid an  individual-based chaotic situation, that every country in the world has a legal system (with all their individual flaws), so that decisions about what is a crime is not based on individual 'thinking'. And while it is true that there is no necessary equivalence between legality and morality, the fact is  that all legal systems are based on a moral code that is not individual-based, but what is the generally accepted moral code in that community/nation. And of course these laws may be adapted/changed as the understanding of what the moral code ought to be evolves in that community.

 

So how do we distinguish between a fanatic and a saint?  I have earlier suggested that it is history which eventually decides. And if we look at our human history, across cultures and religions, we might find a pattern that  perhaps gives us an insight - namely that those who stood up at great cost to themselves for much more than their own inner circle or group or even nation, those who did not discriminate between ‘my people’ and ‘other people’, were the ones whom history decided were really great souls.  Others who stood up only for their own may have been considered at best as heroes by their own respective groups, and at worst as fanatics by others. By this criterion, we can see that the world as a whole has generally come to speak of Gandhi as a great soul (Mahatma), but, except for a small group, Godse his assassin, isn’t - even though both gave their lives for the cause they believed in. Or Martin Luther King Jr. would be considered a great man by a large majority including whites and many outside of the USA, while Malcolm X wouldn’t,  even though both fought for the rights of the blacks.

 

As for ourselves, as Christians, we need to ask ourselves whether our own value hierarchy harmonises with that of Jesus. And in order to understand Jesus’ value hierarchy, we could remind ourselves, for instance, of his choices. So when faced with rules (religious or otherwise)  that tended to downplay the importance of people, Jesus would tend to choose people, as when he broke the sacred Jewish laws to help people.  Or when it was a choice between speaking truth to power or submitting quietly to authorities, Jesus would choose the former, as seen in his entire trial before the High Priest and Pilate. When it was a question of giving importance to one’s own people over others, then Jesus would declare that such a preference was not justified, for all are God’s children and the kingdom would be filled with people from all races (Luke 13:28-29). And so on and so forth.  Keeping these and other teachings and practices of Jesus in mind, we could reflect on a variety of ethical dilemmas that we may have faced in our own lives.  If we do that, we could possibly discern a pattern as to what our own real value hierarchy is. And, if we are honest with ourselves, we might be surprised, as I constantly am, at what our real value hierarchy is - and even more surprisingly we may find the same value hierarchy in those that we oppose.

First Reading: Acts 13: 14, 43-52

But they went on from Perga and came to Antioch in Pisidia. And on the sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. When the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy; and blaspheming, they contradicted what was spoken by Paul. Then both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of eternal life, we are now turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, ‘I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers. Thus the word of the Lord spread throughout the region. But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, and stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their region. So they shook the dust off their feet in protest against them, and went to Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

Second Reading: Revelation 7: 9, 14b-17

After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. Then he said to me, “These are they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.  For this reason they are before the throne of God  and worship him day and night within his temple, and the one who is seated on the throne will shelter them. They will hunger no more and thirst no more;  the sun will not strike them, nor any scorching heat, for the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of the water of life, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

Gospel: John 10: 27-30

 

My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, in regard to what he has given me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.”