As an evangelical pastor about to take a job in Berlin, I was horrified to hear that the man responsible for the tragedy in Norway last week, Anders Behring Breivik, is a "Christian fundamentalist." I do not self-identify as a "fundamentalist," but I believe Jesus was the Son of God, and that belief is enough to win one such a label in some circles. For obvious reasons, I was curious to learn what on earth he did actually believe.
I hurried to get my hands on his bloated, 1,500-page "manifesto" and found, no doubt, lots of references to Christianity and several mentions of the Bible. More important to me, however, were the passages which involved the intersection of his fundamentalism and his blend of Christianity.
On page 1,307, Breivik makes a distinction which reveals the nature of his fundamentalism:
A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians? If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.
Breivik asserts that a majority of the atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians. This comes as a surprise to us all, I suppose. The key to understanding his manifesto, his mania and the confusion currently dominating news headlines lies in the reality that by "Christian" he almost always means "European." In the massive introduction to his manifesto, for example, there is not a single quotation from Scripture, mention of the creeds, allusion to the Church or reference to Jesus Christ himself. And we learn, through the video he posted, that his heroes are not religious figures like Paul or Martin Luther but political figures like Charles Martel and Nicholas I.
Anders Breivik is a cultural fundamentalist. He is a European fundamentalist. But he disowns orthodox Christianity, and this makes it all the more ironic, and disgusting, that he saw himself as a kind of representative against threats to "Christendom."
It was a sad spectacle of the 19th century that some missionaries carrying crosses also felt compelled to catechize foreigners in European cultural distinctives. But it is an odder phenomenon still to see 21st century non-believers adopting the practice of carrying a cross, whose savior they reject, simply to stir up passion for a romanticized version of a culture that no longer exists.
Muslims have been justifiably outraged at immediate speculation that one of their fold was responsible for the attack. And given the man's self-declaration that he does not have a personal relationship with Christ and does not believe in the primary doctrines of the New Testament, I believe Christians might also be legitimately disgruntled. For several days now, the headlines of otherwise reputable journalistic institutions have trumpeted the news that a Christian fundamentalist killed dozens in Norway.
Christians have done terrible, inexcusable things. When we do, bring us to account. But Anders Breivik is not a Christian fundamentalist. He's a European fundamentalist. Here's hoping the papers will run that in their headlines from now on.
Follow Ben Stevens on Twitter: www.twitter.com/benwstevens
Michael Shaw: Reading the Pictures: Norway Massacre: What's in a Headshot?
Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Massacre in Norway: Mad gunman Anders Breivik's evil manifesto ...
Anders Breivik Plagiarized Ted Kaczynski -- Daily Intel
Anders Breivik's Manifesto: What Drove Him to Kill? - Yahoo! News
Anders Breivik's Manifesto Echoes Loudly in Britain - The Daily Beast
Norway Shooting Suspect Anders Breivik: Attacks Were Revenge for ...
Norway shooting: long process of identifying Anders Breivik's ...
Breivik sees himself as a Christian hero just like the Crusaders of times past. That's the problem with the whole deal of having "God's word" written down in a book. You never know when someone might pick up the old book, centuries later, and notice what it actually says.
After all, that's what they demanded from Muslim leaders, after 9/11.
Breivik did say that he was a cultural christian, just as you claim to be a horse riding underage kitty roping cowboy. That does not make either of you extreme.
2. There's a difference between being a "cultural Christian" and a true follower of Christ, just as there is a difference between being a nominal/cultural or even secular Muslim and being a true follower of Islam. Breivik in his own manifesto, multiple times and in numerous explicit ways, says he is basically not a Christian.
3. Read Breivik's manifesto yourself. Don't take your information from any sources but his manifesto.
Finally, I'm not excusing those who profess to be true followers of Christ yet clearly reject his teachings. They are completely and utterly responsible for their actions, and I am in no way defending them. Breivik does not profess to be a Christian but rather a nominal, cultural Christian who admires Christian values but stops at that.
Do not blame the actions of fringe, cultural or nominal Christians, who themselves don't claim to be followers of Jesus, on the actions and thoughts of those who actually follow Christ and especially on actual Christian doctrine and core tenets.
No matter what one thinks of fundamentalism or Christianity, "Christian fundamentalism" has a specific meaning, and all evidence suggests that Breivik is NOT a Christian fundamentalist.
He seems oddly disinterested in faith, piety, spirituality. His "manifesto" is not concerned with religious doctrine, dogma, or practices. He's peculiarly disinterested in Jesus Christ.
Even in my eyes, when it comes to religion, he appears to be quite lame-ass.
He seems to think Christianity is something that a European can put on, like a tunic worn by a Knight Templar when he goes out to battle Islam.
At the moment, we don't know if the man attended worship services anywhere. Ever.
Again, all I am asking for is that people be careful and not misuse their "labels," not mis-characterize this man, or mis-represent his motivations.
We surely make the situation far worse every time we do that.
Breivik, so far as I can tell from his writings, doesn't share even a single belief in common with any Christian fundamentalists. Some of his beliefs are clearly contrary to fundamentalism.
So, no matter what kind of Christian he may be, no matter what label we attach to him, we ought not to confuse him with "Christian fundamentalists." A group I am frequently and harshly critical of.
But Breivik has no place among them.
Islam has long ago been recognized as a vile grotesque man made system of false god false politics false culture. What I want and need are more reasons NOT TO HATE MUSLIMS and to wish them and support them on a path to understanding and freedom.
Just a thought. Thanks so much for your comments!
1. Person A: All vegetarians regularly eat meat.
2. Person B: I'm vegetarian and I don't eat meat at all!
3. Person A: All true vegetarians regularly eat meat.
That syllogism is technically a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but obviously there is a problem in the definition of "vegetarian" used above. It's a given that the basic definition of vegetarian includes a rejection of eating meat.
In the same way, a belief in God is essential to Christianity. Hebrews 11:6 makes clear that one must belief God exists and will reward those who diligently seek Him. Yet Breivik claims to be non-religious on the existence of God question (in more places than just the one quoted above), although he does say that if in a tight spot he would pray to God...including during his massacre unfortunately.
Reading the manifesto one quickly realizes that he has a different definition of "Christian" and "Christianity" than your average person on the street, or from any church body for that matter. He sees Christianity as a cultural relic of a victorious Europe. He sees Christianity as a way of uniting the masses to accomplish European rebirth. Being a Christian means being a European, which is why he includes atheists and agnostics in his definition. Of course, few others (if any) would agree with such a definition. Do you?
All to often, people use it as an argument that you can't say that someone who claims to be [x] isn't [x]. If that was a fallacy, our language would break down. I could claim to be an eggplant, and if someone dragged out a dictionary to prove that I'm not, they would be guilty of a logical fallacy.
The logical fallacy of "No True Scotsman" is simple enough: You're either a Scotsman, or you're not. You can't be an "untrue Scotsman", because an untrue Scotsman isn't a Scotsman at all. In addition, the term "true Scotsman" is sheer nonsense. You either fill the definition of a word, or you don't. There's no 'true' or 'untrue' about it.
This guy wasn't an "untrue Christian". He wasn't a Christian AT ALL, because he didn't fill the main requirement: He didn't believe in Christ.
He did, however, claim to be an eggplan... No, sorry, that should be "Christian". He claimed to be a Christian. He also claimed to be a secularist, and the savior of Europe. Would you say that there is a "no true savior of Europe" fallacy? And, if so, does that mean that it's a fallacy to say that Breivik isn't the savior of Europe?
It is also true that Europe is shaped by its Christian culture, just as the US is shaped by its majority Christian population. Just as in the US, this can have very, very bad results. Becuase Europe is, on the whole, a lot less religious than the US, the religious tension and rhetoric are also much, much less, and violence perpetrated in the name of Jesus is much less.
The sooner that Christians get back to being Christians and espousing Christian values, rather than fundamentalist nonsense, the better off the world will be.
Why "war of empires" rather than war for not submitting to allah and for protecting Saudi Arabia?