Call Brevik an ‘anti-Muslim terrorist’

Q. Calling himself an anti-Muslim ’crusader’ for ’Christendom,’ Anders Behring Breivik killed 76 people in Norway last week. Should Breivik be called a ‘Christian terrorist’?

A. The tragic killings in Norway demonstrated -- among quite a few other things -- that initial news accounts of turbulent events must be taken with a grain of salt. Some early reports, based on no apparent evidence, described the Oslo bombing as the work of Islamic terrorists. A few hours later Anders Behring Breivik was introduced to the world as the Oslo bomber and the perpetrator of the island slaughter, and described by officials as a “Christian fundamentalist.” Well, that wasn’t true either.

In the portions of his 1500-page manifesto not cut-and-pasted from the Unabomber, Breivik owns up to a religious perspective that is far removed from anything Americans would recognize as Protestant fundamentalism. In a July 25 blog on Religion Dispatches, Christian feminist historian Julie Ingersoll does as good a job as anyone at unpacking what Breivik’s manifesto reveals about his religious views.

Breivik expresses a number of positions out of keeping with Christian fundamentalism. He specifically criticizes the Protestant concept of Sola scriptura (by scripture alone), saying “the Bible requires an infallible church ... without Tradition, each man becomes his own authority and interpreter of scripture.” Elsewhere he advocates what amounts to the restoration of 12th century Crusader Bernard of Clairvaux, who preached the Second Crusade and helped draft the Rule of the Knights Templar. Far from being a Christian fundamentalist or even a Protestant, Breivik seems more like a hard-core retro-Catholic.

Yet in other ways he seems more like a contemporary “cafeteria Catholic,” writing: “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.”

In fact, Breivik intimates that religious practice has not been a terribly important part of his life. Repeating the old canard that “there are no atheists in foxholes,” he predicted that he might well “ask God for strength” (as though that were something he did not do very often) while he was carrying out his attacks. He expressed concern that as the hour to strike drew nigh, he might succumb to fear; he hoped that in that time, his faith would give him the strength to press forward. In this way Breivik seemed to think he would use his inchoately Christian faith in much the same way the 9/11 hijackers are believed to have used their understanding of Islam, to burnish their dedication to the coming “martyrdom operation.”

When faith lends itself to uses like this, I can’t help wishing there were more atheists in the world.

“Breivik’s Christianity about Culture, Not Piety,” her blog post was headlined, and I think that captures an important truth. By all indications, religion was apparently less significant than cultural identity among Breivik’s motivations. Rather than arguing which kind of Christianity we ought to tarnish by attaching its name to his, let’s call him an “anti-Muslim terrorist” and have done with it.

Tom Flynn  | Jul 27, 2011 10:49 AM