How Daesh (داعش) Does Really Effective Ministry

Rod Dreher does the world a tremendous favor today by posting a number of links to anthropologist and terror scholar Scott Atran , including this recent piece in The Guardian on the nature of داعش (Daesh, or The Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria), this long interview with Russia Today, this essay in The New York Review of Books, and this piece for Foreign Policy.

Read them. Atran understands the appeal of Revolutionary Islam — he understands the appeal of revolution itself, especially for the young, who seek both adventure and moral clarity as they seek a place and a purpose in the world — and he appreciates the difficulties the bourgeois West faces in dealing what is essentially a revolutionary crusade to make a perfect world. I think Atran underestimates the sheer overwhelming and crushing power of bourgeois banality — it has steamrolled everything in its path, and I doubt Revolutionary Islam, for all its rage and well-planned violence, will prevail over the essential bureaucratic and mechanical meaninglessness of modernity.

I won’t belabor many of the points Atran makes — you should just read them. Mostly, he focuses on the tremendous appeal of meaning and purpose that داعش presents to the young, disaffected and otherwise, of the West, young people who are looking for something bigger to belong to.

Meaning, belonging, and purpose — I write a lot about these things in my book. That was the appeal of Islam for me, and it was the appeal of Revolutionary Islam for the few years I flirted with it. Secular modernity has done very poorly for some — misfits and castoffs and otherwise marginalized people for whom there is no room in a society that won’t tolerate alternative forms of meaning to modernity’s search for comfort, security, and pleasure. Or for whom there is no space in or with the moralizing cohorts of the progressive left, which demands inclusion in a world I’m honestly not sure is worth being included in and which simply doesn’t include us in their idea of inclusion anyway. (Yes, I am still something of a frustrated revolutionary. I really do wish I had a revolution I could fight and die for, worth fighting and dying for…)

And I’ll have to be honest, when the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America tossed me out of their candidacy process in 2014, saying I was too much of a sinner — too much of a potential liability — to be a pastor, that set off a tremendous crisis of meaning and purpose in my life. One that I haven’t really been able to resolve. Because I still ache to belong to something. And I don’t now. Because I’m not allowed to belong.

So, I get the appeal of داعش, and were I younger, I think it’s something I could join. I would have found beheadings distasteful, but honestly, it’s about building a better world. So I could have lived with them and justified them. After all, no sacrifice is too small for a better tomorrow — George W. Bush set fire to all of Iraq with the promise of a better tomorrow — so Americans aren’t all that different. Save that our means are mechanical, bureaucratic, and impersonal. We don’t get our hands so terribly bloody when we kill.

But none of this is what I want to focus on. In the NYRB piece, Atran notes something stunning as he critiques Western efforts to counter داعش “propaganda”:

In its feckless “Think Again Turn Away” social media program, the US State Department has tried to dissuade youth with mostly negative anonymous messaging. “So DAESH wants to build a future, well is beheading a future you want, or someone controlling details of your diet and dress?” Can anyone not know that already? Does it really matter to those drawn to the cause despite, or even because of, such things? As one teenage girl from a Chicago suburb retorted to FBI agents who stopped her from flying to Syria: “Well, what about the barrel bombings that kill thousands? Maybe if the beheading helps to stop that.” And for some, strict obedience provides freedom from uncertainty about what a good person is to do.

By contrast, the Islamic State may spend hundreds of hours trying to enlist single individuals and groups of friends, empathizing instead of lecturing, to learn how to turn their personal frustrations and grievances into a universal theme of persecution against all Muslims, and thus translate anger and frustrated aspiration into moral outrage. From Syria, a young woman messages another:

I know how hard it is to leave behind the mother and father you love, and not tell them until you are here, that you will always love them but that you were put on this earth to do more than be with or honor your parents. I know this will probably be the hardest thing you may ever have to do, but let me help you explain it to yourself and to them.

And any serious engagement must be attuned to individuals and their networks, not to mass marketing of repetitive messages. Young people empathize with each other; they generally don’t lecture at one another. There are nearly fifty thousand Twitter accounts supporting ISIS, with an average of some one thousand followers each.

There’s a word for what داعش is doing here — ministry. While Western governments futz and fiddle (and generally fail) with programs and policies, داعش is building individual relationships of empathy and support, reaching across as individual human beings to other individual human beings, listening to life stories and then slowly, carefully, and deliberately providing a meaning and structure, and then a series of answers about life and the world that lead to purposeful action.

According to Atran, the FBI has only one person — an agent in Los Angeles — doing any kind of counter-engagement.

Here the whole problem of the West (including the church) lies bare — we cannot conceive of anything or anyone working outside the confines of our bureaucratic and institutional structures. We cannot think outside of those structures, and we cannot hire (or call) people who don’t quite fit in them (or don’t fit in them at all) because fitting in those structures, conforming to them, is more important than actually accomplishing the things those structures and institutions are designed to accomplished. In our modern understanding, man was clearly made for the sabbath, and damned is the man who cannot or will not rest on the seventh day.

I know many pastors who are deeply frustrated with a bureaucratic church life that seems deliberately and purposefully intent on suffocating or even preventing ministry. The good they do, the relationships they build, the presence of God they share and are part of, seem almost accidents in daily lives given over to bureaucratic and administrative nonsense. Its seems much of the world works that way, on accident rather than on purpose. It is deeply frustrating to live in a world like that.

And deeply human to want to change that.

Atran is right. Since the summer, I’ve done an online ministry with young people that has worked largely in this dynamic. It’s not hard to find kids who ache to be listened to empathetically — they are all over Whisper — and to say a kind word or two to them. To gain their trust simply by listening. I try to give hope, a Jesus-shaped hope (without overtly mentioning Jesus, though as I have read Atran’s work, I think that has been a mistake) to those who express hopelessness and despair. It’s tough work, this empathetic relationship building, even online, and I was successful at it when I was unemployed and could devote myself to it full time. But once I was employed, and had other work that swallowed up my days, well, there have been a couple of significant failures because I could not devote all the time needed to all the people I had committed to.

And as I think about this ministry, I suspect no church in its right mind would approve such a thing — much less approve me to do it. Too risky. Too unquantifiable. Too … strange. Where’s the program? The job description? The accountability? The measures of success?

If the West wanted to properly counter داعش, western governments would create — or better, probably foster and encourage — a cadre of empathetic relationship builders (or pastors, if you will) who will meet the same kinds of people in the same kinds of ways that داعش recruiters do and engage them. By listening, by empathizing, and then by slowly inviting those people into an understanding of their life, their meaning, and their purpose that doesn’t involve the waging of global revolution. I personally think love is a good organizing principle, but then I would. Perhaps we could aim to create an “Army of Love,” jaish al-hub جيش الحب, though what the point of that army would be, aside from doing what Jesus tells us to do — preach, teach, and baptize — I’m not sure.

Mostly because I don’t think there is anything more. But that’s just me.

What I do know is that no Western government could organize this without thinking in terms of call centers or customer support. Without imposing the means and methods of modern management in order to try to continually prove its effectiveness. Without job descriptions and regular metrics. You couldn’t sell mere relationship building, love as both means and end, to a modern organization. Contractors are allowed to rob governments blind but something as “unorganized” as this would simply give managers the hives. I’m not even sure a church could do it effectively. Because churches are wrapped up in the same way of doing business as governments and corporations. It’s all the same rotten culture.

So, داعش will continue to find — and be found — by those seeking meaning. Because young people want to know their lives have value and purpose. Because so many are hungering for meaningful encounters with empathetic adults who will value them and help guide them toward that purpose. I know because I’ve met them. And I still meet them. There are young people out there who hunger for meaning, purpose, and belonging, who yearn for something more than the grand buffet of unlimited consumption and meaningless comfort, of using and being used. And right now, for some, داعش provides that.

A smart society would find room for such people without demanding the kind of complete conformity that liberal modernity demands. But we do not live in a smart society. Most people seem happy with the promises of the modern world (and bully for them) and cannot fathom why some of us are misfits, malcontents, and marginalized — why we want something more. Or something different. So, because of that, it probably won’t matter what even a fairly large portion of the disaffected and the misfit want or even choose. We’ll all be steamrolled by the impersonal machine that is bureaucratic modernity anyway. The West can afford to do nothing. It can afford not to care.

11 thoughts on “How Daesh (داعش) Does Really Effective Ministry

  1. Hi Charles

    A lot of “heady” stuff in here to mull over.

    I was interested in what u said about the online support you gave people. It made me wonder whether that could lend itself to an online church community. Maybe have a mass online with embedded worship songs and a sermon. Also have a lfew live chat rooms where people could socialise afterwards. It would need to be linked into a local

    church somewhere for the eucharist and baptisms though. Maybe something like this would work with dissaffectedyouth compared to normal. Probably work more for dissaffected Christians. Oh well….in another universe maybe..

    As to the Western governments not having a handle on providing meaning & purpose, how could they as they are secular non theocratic, whereas Daesh is theocratic ? This shiuld give them pause to at least support religions that can build self esteem & purpose in their citizens but to do so they would need to give up some of their hedonistic agendas. That ain’t gonna happen!


    • Modernity actually does a very good job at providing meaning and purpose. And even belonging. Modernity doesn’t believe in nothing. In fact, the problem the church should have with modernity and enlightenment is that they make truth claims — about the human person, about the purpose and nature of human existence (individually and collectively) that are completely at odds with the truth claims the church makes. The problem I have with modernity (and with any ideology) is that it aims to fit human beings without much concern for who and what they really are. There’s little room for dissent in modernity, little room for non-conformity — people *must* fit or they are the problem. I think the pre-modern church, with it’s huge spread of vocations, understood this. I’m less convinced the modern church (catholic and otherwise) gets this because so many Christians (conservative and progressive) are tied to ideological visions of how they believe the world should be arranged.

  2. Sometimes steamrollers get steamrolled. Sometimes Jonah goes to Nineveh, and (to his disgust and disappointment) the people actually repent and God spares them.

    The bourgeois bureaucratic order of today is not the same as the one in 1950. Much did pass away and much was upended in the process of change. Not all for the better. The new order is more democratic, but maybe therefore more insidious: its truth claims are all the more non-negotiable.

    Big changes seem to correlate with mass migration, as happened (internally) in the US after WW2. Europe in the end cannot refuse immigration from Asia and Africa, because their low birth rate makes their economies dependent on it. Hispanic immigration to the US will continue to increase simply by the laws of statistical mechanics. When hundreds of millions of people are bouncing around hard enough, they are bound to get mixed together.

    So the ground will shift under the established order and it will, for a while, look more like jello than granite. Then things will solidify again in a different shape. Meanwhile, we live and love and work and have faith. And the Spirit will work in subtle ways. And there may again be a huge spread of vocations. Maybe not in ways we would prefer or recommend to the Almighty. The new Pentecostal movement was universally reviled when it first appeared (1906?). It is sure looming large in the Global South these days.

    A few years ago, there was a ‘Terminator’ TV series (better than most of the movies, IMO). In one episode, an important scene took place in what we were supposed to think was a Catholic mission church in East L.A. But from the writing in Spanish which was part of a big mural on the exterior wall, it was clear the building they were using was a Hispanic evangelical church, almost certainly Pentecostal in nature. Inertia remains, but at the same time, the world is steadily subverting all our expectations.

  3. Pingback: Charles Featherstone on Daesh (The Islamic State) as Ministry | Everyone's Entitled to Joe's Opinion

  4. Guys,

    I found this article relating to comments made by our last Aussie PM, had a good comparison between “Church & State”. It seems to encourage Christians supporting the “State” when it upholds good goals & structures but also in urging it to to do more. This may even go to supporting a certain experience of culture, as long as it brings cohesiveness and is merciful.
    The problem I see with many Western cultures is now they are morphing away from their original uniqueness and are engulfing all sorts of ideologies. This is both good and bad. The bad result however, is making ambiguous relativism into a culture. That’s one thing that is disaffecting youth big time.


  5. Pingback: Church Growth and Pastoral Ministry | Everyone's Entitled to Joe's Opinion

  6. I love the part about love being a means and and end to itself.
    If you start a church in my town (london), i’m there 🙂


  7. Pingback: Advent Week 2: What Does Exile Look Like? | Everyone's Entitled to Joe's Opinion

  8. Pingback: Here We Go Again… – Charles H. Featherstone

Leave a Reply