It is crass to use a tragedy to buttress a political point, but it is a common tendency among politicians and theologians alike. While the numerical decline in the SBC can hardly be classified as a tragedy compared to events in Norway, the way that everyone has used the statistics to make their point is an example of this tendency. “Numbers are down so we have to seek new ways to relate to the culture.” “Numbers are down so we have to go back to the traditional ways.” When something bad occurs, we often want to use it make our point. The greater the tragedy, the more tawdry the instinct to make hay from it.
It did not take long after Norway’s unspeakable tragedy last week for some politicians and theologians to marshal the facts to make their political or religious enemies look bad. There seems to have been a concerted attempt to lay this crime at the feet of “Christian Fundamentalism”. Ed Stetzer wrote an article that shows the fundamental flaw in the attempt to identify this man with Christianity and fundamentalism and to present this as a broader indictment on conservatives, the Tea Party and evangelicalism. There are already calls in the press for a crackdown on “right-wing extremism” and “islamophobia.” It is interesting that the same press which has constantly told us that attack after attack by Muslim extremists is actually a diversion from the true Islam – “a religion of peace” – now jumps quickly to paint this tragedy as part and parcel of conservative politics and evangelical faith.
The left-wing media outlets in Europe and the US were very quick to label Anders Behring Breivik as a Christian, though there is little evidence that faith was a motivating factor for what happened. In a video he uploaded to Youtube a few hours before the attacks, he displays anger against Marxism, political correctness and Islam, but gives almost no mention to Christianity, other than as a cultural norm in Europe. The evidence of his Christianity largely flows from his self-identification on Facebook as a Christian and a conservative, according to the Atlantic. There is little in his writings that reveal a religious motivation for his actions. But that has not stopped the media from painting this as an act of religious hate. Stetzer provided a link to an article by “Get Religion” – a site that tries to help the media understand the workings of religion. The article includes this sardonic explanation of the evidence for Breivik’s “Christian Fundamentalism.”
In this lengthy listing (49 pages) of writings the alleged shooter posted to a message board, there’s a paragraph or two devoted to his religious views. We learn that he’s a Protestant (of his own “free will”) who wishes that the Church of Norway would just convert back to Rome, he dislikes priests who wear jeans and support Palestinians, and that he thinks the modern church is dying. We know from other evidence that he is a Free Mason.
Meanwhile, the deputy police chief announced that the shooter was a “Christian fundamentalist” but no one has reported either the evidence for the claim or how the police determined that. Whatever the case, he may be the only Freemason, Rome-leaning, Protestant fundamentalist in the world.
It seems likely that it was prejudice and bias, not facts or evidence, that led to Breivik being branded a “Christian Fundamentalist.” He is a man of evil who did a despicable thing, but his faith had little or nothing to do with it. And there is absolutely no evidence that he is a fundamentalist in whatever faith he has. But that has not stopped politicians and media from branding him. Those few conservative Christians left in Europe will pay the price for this prejudicial assignation.
A New Low from Frank Schaeffer
A particularly vile bit of political opportunism appeared in print within hours of the tragedy. In an article likely to be nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for Jumping to Unwarranted Conclusions, Frank Schaeffer wrote, “Christian Jihad? Why We Should Worry About Right-Wing Terror Attacks Like Norway’s in the US.” The article is more about Schaeffer’s disdain for the conservatism of his youth than about anything that happened in Norway. He levels accusations without evidence, makes blatantly false comparisons and engages in exactly the kind of inflated rhetoric for which he chides conservatives.
In 2009, Brievik made this statement.
“Today’s Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic.”
It is one of his only references to religion in his writings. But from this evidence, Schaeffer makes the following conclusion:
It seems Anders Behring Breivik longed for a “pure” and ultra conservative religion. He was a man of religious conviction, no liberals with their jeans need apply! Liberals beware.
That is a rather large camel to swallow from straining at a small gnat. Because two years ago he made a statement of disgust against the church, Schaeffer deduces that his motivation was the desire for a “pure and ultraconservative religion.” From this wisp of evidence, Schaeffer then makes this ominous deduction.
Norway is just a first taste of what will happen here on a larger scale.
He goes on to tie “religious right extremists” in the US, the Tea Party, the “debt-ceiling fiasco”, and the pro-life movement to Norway’s mass murderer. It seems that each paragraph grows a little more shrill and a little more extreme.
(T)he terror unleashed on Norway – and the terror now unleashed by the Tea Party through Congress as it holds our economy hostage to extremist “economic” theories that want to destroy our ability to function — is the sort of white, Christian; far right terror America can expect more of.
And then, this.
Call this the ultimate “Tea Party” type “answer” to secularism, modernity, and above all our hated government. Call this the Christian Brotherhood. From far right congress people, to far right gun-toting terror in Norway and here at home, our own Western version of the Taliban is on the rise.
Here’s the only problem. There is no evidence that ties Breivik to any of the groups around whose neck Schaeffer wants to hang this tragedy. Shaeffer doesn’t need evidence. His prejudicial disdain for conservative Christianity is all he needs to make wild accusations such as these. The evidence is that Breivik was an angry anti-Muslim who was motivated more by hate than by religion. There is no evidence that religion motivated him. To try to link Breivik to conservative Christianity is a lie based on bias and has little validity.
This kind of tawdry article says more about the author than it does about the topic.
Perspectives
I would make the following points about this tragedy.
1) We need to be careful not to engage in that which we condemn.
When Daniel Wu is accused of sexual assault, it is all too easy for me to say, “See, those Democrats have no morals.” Even if Wu is guilty, he does not represent all Democrats. I think Schaeffer is wrong to infer from one nut in Norway that all Christians are dangerous. I should not infer from one (alleged) sexual assault that all democrats are immoral. I cannot engage in the behavior that I condemn in others.
2) People just don’t understand what Fundamentalism is.
I know that the term “fundamentalism” has some nasty connotations today, but in its basic application it simply means one who holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith – the authority of God’s Word, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the blood atonement, salvation through Christ alone, the return of Christ to judge the world (sans millennial details at this place). By this classic definition, I am a fundamentalist and so are about 97% of the folks that wander by this site.
There is another connotation of fundamentalism – the “independent, fundamental, King James Only, legalistic, separatistic” brand of Christianity. Few Southern Baptists today actually fit in this category, thought the term is bandied about in debate at times.
I’ll be honest – these fundamentalist groups annoy me. I have trouble maintaining civility when King James Onlyists start in with their circular arguments. And the legalistic self-righteousness and divisiveness of some groups in that movement is offensive. But I have yet to meet an independent fundamental Baptist who was organizing a terror cell. Christian fundamentalists are not terrorists. They may be annoying, but are seldom violent.
What the press calls fundamentalism is really not fundamentalism. It is extremism, and a perversion of faith. I don’t know if the major media outlets are ignorant or willfully deceptive, but they seem unable to distinguish Christian fundamentalism from white supremacist or other political extremist groups. They are certainly violent, but they do not adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
In fact, I suspect that it is not that they cannot see the difference, but that they do not want to. They want to create a continuum between conservative Christian belief and extremist political action. They do not make the distinction because they don’t want to.
The only place where religious fervor has exhibited violence is in the outlying areas of the anti-abortion movement. But there are only small fractions of the pro-life movement that has embraced any form of violence. I’ve never met a conservative Christian who advocates violence against abortion doctors, but I know they do exist. But this is in no way a systemic or widespread phenomenon – certainly not like the liberal elements of the press like to portray it.
For all the flak they take, Fox News’ coverage (at least the part I read) did not join into the anti-Christian-fundamentalist rhetoric of the major left-wing news outlets.
3) Breivik did evil, but that does not mean that everyone who agrees with him will do the same evil.
Here’s where I might get killed in this discussion. As I watched Breivik’s cultural analysis in the video above, I found myself agreeing with him at certain points. I am not saying that I agree with everything he says, but I do think that the political agenda of many in Islam in Europe and the United States is anything but peaceful and harmless. I agree with his disdain for political correctness and its chilling effects on free speech. But just because I agree with this man at some points does not mean that I condone his actions.
That is the root of Shaeffer’s tactic – to say that if two people or groups agree on a political point, that they must share a violent agenda. But if I agree with a few points made by this evil man, that does not mean I agree with all he says, that I approve of his approach, or that I condone his violence.
While I share some of his disdain for liberalism and some of his concern about the spread is Islam in the western world, I condemn his violence. More than that, his response shows a basic lack of understanding of what Christianity is all about. The Early Church grew in a hostile environment, under a government that was hostile and evil. But Paul did not organize a political movement nor did he take up arms against the government. He fought the evil with the greatest weapon he had – the gospel of Jesus Christ which transforms lives.
The job of the church is not first and foremost to straighten out the world’s politics, but to make disciples of all nations. So, even if I see some of the same problems that Breivik saw, I am fundamentally opposed to his solution, to his actions. Christians are called to live in hostile environments for the glory of God. Whether Europe or America, our response is to be the church and to do the work of the church, regardless of what is going on politically. I will vote and I will speak, but the most important work I do is preach God’s Word and lead a church to serve God in Sioux City.
It is a product of weak logic and false comparisons to attempt to link everyone who shares a particular political view to a common approach. Most pro-lifers eschew all violence, even if a minuscule number embrace it. While many conservatives view the government suspiciously, we do not seek to use violence to overthrow it. It is simply lazy journalism and dishonest argument to try to make the comparisons that liberal media outlets and Frank Shaeffer have made.
4) We must be unequivocal in our condemnation of evil.
Even as we clarify the willful or ignorant deceit of the mainline news organizations on this, we must be clear in our denunciation of the acts of this man. God is the author of life and it is an act of hubris and blasphemy to take that right on myself.
Abortion is a most heinous act of evil – the killing of a baby in its mother’s womb. I will not vote for a politician whose morals are so corrupt that he or she believes that such an act is warranted. I will speak against them and vote against them and pray that America sees the evil of that act. But if any man or women who uses violence against an abortionist is as evil as the abortionist.
I have often wondered why Muslim leaders are not more clear in their condemnation of violence and terrorism carried on by Muslims. If someone who names the name of Christ (even if his views are skewed and he does not represent the faith) carries out an act of violence, we must be unequivocal in our condemnation of that act.
Anders Breivik was wrong, evil, sinful. No matter what his political views and his grievances, there is no justification for this act of evil. I do not believe he was a Christian or that religion played any significant role in his actions, but we must make it clear that violence is wrong even if it is in the pursuit of that which I believe.
So…
What has happened should not surprise us. Evil was done and people used that evil to advance their own agendas. It isn’t right, but it isn’t rare either. But our response must be reasoned, seasoned with grace and delivered with kindness.
Wow . . . very thorough, well-reasoned and valuable thoughts in reaction to a tragedy that is more fathomable than it should be. I think, in part, laziness causes media and pundits to attach labels to actions. People’s actions are not always in line with some set group of ideals. We’re emotional and reactive and, I think, increasingly frustrated. Breivik, like McVeigh, acted in the extreme with the misguided idea that it would have some permanent impact. Not in this world. He generates a lot of fear because there is such uncertainty in his actions and a reminder that people… Read more »
Thanks!
Let’s see–which side of the isle is it that wants to: bankrupt this country by spending more than we could ever take in (particularly by giving away services to illegal immigrants and people who are able bodied and could work but don’t want to), fight tooth and nail to make sure women have the “right” to slaughter their unborn babies, enable our enemies (those who wish to kill us) to defeat us by tying the hands of our brave men and women in the armed forces so they can’t fight?
Oh, that’s right-it’s the political (and theological) left.
Glad you cited Get Religion – a website I’ve been following for a number of years now. However, their purpose is not to expose the “liberal media” but to offer constructive criticism of all legitimate media outlets re: their coverage of religion. The role of the website is to help journalists better “get religion.”
Those who have followed Get Religion know that many of their favorite religion journalists who BEST “get religion” are employed by the “liberal media” at places like the Washington Post and New York Times.
Thanks for the knowledge – I may correct the article to reflect your information.
Part of the problem is that the media really gets no training, no education in religion. Look at all the newspapers that have reassigned long-time religion reporters to cover local news and done away with the religion section. Heck, there was an incident earlier this year when Melissa Rogers of Wake Forest and Jim Wallis were dubbed as “Faces of the Religious Right” by Newsweek! The guy that runs the Get Religion website (Terry Mattingly) is a former Southern Baptist (his dad was a Texas Baptist pastor) and covered the SBC annual meetings in the 70s and 80s. He was… Read more »
Also, your first definition of fundamentalism really defines evangelicalism. Historians – Evangelical and Mainline Protestant alike – agree that any definition of “fundamentalism” in its historic Protestant context has to include a separatist or separatistic element to it. Your second definition makes note of that but your first definition does not. The Get Religion folks would say that the media should – almost always – only describe as “fundamentalist” those individuals and groups who self-identify as fundamentalist. I can’t think of any well-known figure or group who self-identifies as “fundamentalist” and yet does not hold to some sort of doctrine… Read more »
To add, I agree with Stetzer’s post. This guy shouldn’t be described as a fundamentalist due to his views about the Catholic Church.
Driving and having formatting problems. Back later.
This is tragic. Both from Shaeffer’s standpoint (what a wasted life) and the Norway Tragedy. The World needs a change of heart. The SBC needs a change of heart to better respond to the World. I am a Charismatic Southern Baptist who longs to stay within the denomination and see change happen that offers a home to folks like me in SBC life. I know there are others out there who long for this as well. Please email your thoughts at sbckairos@gmail.com
I don’t think that the terrorist knows about the Catholic Church’s ‘social doctrines’, or he wouldn’t have said that he wanted the Lutheran Norwegian Church to ‘revert’ to Catholicism. My Church’s social doctrines are well-documented over a long period of time and are consistent with our view of the Holy Gospels of Our Lord, but these doctrines could never find a home with a man who despises the Norwegian Labor Party and its values, which are basically consistent with my Church’s teachings on social fairness to working people. I think the terrorist was a ‘culture warrior’ in the worst sense… Read more »
“””I have often wondered why Muslim leaders are not more clear in their condemnation of violence and terrorism carried on by Muslims.”””
At least part of the answer lies in the fact that “violence” has been a component endemic to, not an aberration of, the Muslim faith. It is not politically correct to state this fact, but even a cursory reading of the Koran will demonstrate this is so.
Frank,
You narrow-minded, hate-mongerin’, fundy!!! 🙂
Thank you, Frank. If only people would “get it” as bin Laden once lamented….. if only Muslims knew their Koran and would do their duty.
btw: Al Gore’s book was found in the cabin of the unibomber. So that proves…..guilt by association. :o)
And Frankie has gone off the deep end.
Great article, Dave. Might be the best post I’ve ever read by you. Hopefully, some other bloggers will pick this up and pass it along beyond just the regular readers of SBC Voices.
Lydia, Frank, it’s because it’s simply not true.
It most certainly is. Try reading it sometime.
I think every figure head of every major Christian denomination or group should issue a joint statement unequivocally denouncing this nutjob for what he is, and making it clear that no matter what this guy says about himself, he is most definitely NOT a Christian.
Hi BILL MAC, Not to worry . . . the world knows the killer was not following the Great Commandment of Christ. Might be better for denominations to call now for prayer for Norway, especially for the injured and also to ask for the Divine Consolation of the grieving parents and loved ones. This is the time to think about the Norwegian people in their great need. In doing so, Christians will be will be.making the kind of selfless public statement that keeps the focuses on those who need our support in prayer, and that honors Christ the Lord before… Read more »
Praying for him is more in keeping with ‘who we are’ as followers of Christ, if you think about it, and this is the ‘identity’ we need for the world to see, during this tragic time. Well, considering that you’re not a Christian because you don’t believe the gospel it’s more than just a little offensive for you to include yourself as a follower of Christ. Proof that you’re not a Christian?? You believe that God will save a muslim though Christ without him ever consciously trusting Christ if he is a sincere, devout muslim who does good to people.… Read more »
I have no idea what the world knows of the Great Commandment, but I suspect not much. What the world knows is that this man is being labelled as a Christian and that his christianity is being linked to his makeup as a mass murderer and terrorist. So yeah, I want us to distance ourselves from him. That does not preclude praying for him. The world needs to know, without reservation, that this is not what Christians do. Period.
Funny, not once have we heard muslim leaders issue statements that the muslims who performed terrorist acts are not muslims. Hmm. Wonder why that is?
Brother Dave, I have often wondered why Muslim leaders are not more clear in their condemnation of violence and terrorism carried on by Muslims. I Googled “muslim leaders condemn terrorism.” <a href="http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/"Here is one link from the first page of results. Interestingly most Muslim people I am in contact with view terrorism EXACTLY the same way we are speaking of this young man from Norway. Something along the line of “He isn’t a real/good fill-in-your-religion-here He is just culturallyfill-in-your-religion-here. Really his actions are motivated by his bizarre political beliefs and he forces his theology into his political system. But he… Read more »
Guess it’s been a while since I’ve commented anywhere and I can’t code properly any more!
Take two:
Click here
I am not a Muslim, so my purpose in writing this was not to criticize Muslims or Islam. My focus was on the press’ tendency to jump to the conclusion that this man was “Christian fundamentalist” which seems to me to spring from either willful ignorance or more likely a disdain for Christians and Christianity in the left-wing, established media.
Denny Burk has an article which quotes Breivik’s manifesto to the effect that he denies being a Christian.
Brother Dave, I have perused his manifesto. It is sad. Same political “I don’t like those people because they are not like me” mantra that we hear from Islamic extremists. I don’t think he is a biblical follower of Jesus anymore than Muhammad was. However, the world in general does not define a “Christian” the way you and I do. So, for most people because he claims this as his identity, everyone just goes along with it. I don’t like it either. As to Brother Denny’s comments. He may have missed what immediately follows in the manifesto. In the text… Read more »
Good analysis. And glad you’ve come out of hiding, FTME. We miss you in blogdom.
Thanks for welcoming me back! It’s nice to have a little bit of free time to participate. Thought I’d throw out another quote from the manifesto that is extremely disturbing, but true no matter what the religion: Pragmaticists or rationalistic minded individuals who are hardened atheists should consider the following; it may be pragmatic to believe in an afterlife as it will make you a more efficient soldier. The less fearfull a person is the more effective he will be as a warrior. A person who believes that death is eternal is likely to be more fearful than an individual… Read more »
I find this statement very interesting and wonder how many more like Breivik there are. This is why it is important to emphasize Christ in our denomination and not morals. Dennis quotes: 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… Read more »
I have come to believe that there are a lot of cultural Christians in the pews today, who are more interested in “cultural, social, identity and moral” issues than a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
So basically, this man calls himself a Christian even though he denies what a Christian is just like gay people in New York are calling themselves “married” when they’re not or muslims claim they are worshipping God when they’re not.
Just because someone redefines a term for their own use (like this nutjob from Norway) does not change what that term actually means.
Francais Schaffer must weep to see what he son has devolved into.
I’ve been reading some European media reports and, yes, the terrorist is being described as a ‘Christian fundamentalist’. I haven’t seen comments about him being a ‘Christian evangelical’, so I guess these Europeans have concluded that he was NOT an evangelical Christian. Europe is already familiar with attacks by Islamic fundamentalists so they have a particular opinion of the word ‘fundamentalist’ as ‘extremist’ and destructive. Yet European countries have opened their doors to Islamic immigration without fear of the immigrants who are of that faith, so the Europeans have been defining terrorism as coming from ‘fundamentalism’ in religions; hence the… Read more »
You know, L’s, your faux compassion would seem (at least to those who don’t know you) much more sincere if you showed compassion for EVERYONE rather than just for the enemies of the gospel.
For instance, haven’t heard a peep out of you regarding this poor man whose life is in danger.
http://www.dennyburk.com/iranian-pastor-faces-execution-for-christian-faith/
Of course, he doesn’t deserve compassion, right?
Be peaceful, dear one. (snicker)
Christiane, Actually, my objection was more about American reports calling him a fundamentalist. And I’m not convinced that European countries that have opened doors to Muslims are all together comfortable with the growth of Islam in their countries. I recall reports of both European citizens and leaders in opposition to Islam in their countries. Also, Christian fundamentalists would seem to be those who act in a more pious biblical manner, as they see it, and therefore would not be those who engage in killing in the name of Christ contra Islamic fundamentalists who may be shown to kill in the… Read more »
I see. Yes, American media would have noticed certain influences written about in the ‘manifesto’ of Breivik. They would have known that these influences were ‘extremist’ perveyors of Islamophobia on the speaking tour of our country that accepts such people and funds them . . . I don’t think that all Americans see ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘conservative evangelicals’ as the same, come to think of it. So you do have a valid concern, there. A lot of Americans see the word ‘fundamentalists’ and think of ‘prairee dresses’, cults, militia movements, etc. A lot of Americans separate those extremists from ‘Christian’, but… Read more »
oops, correction:
Father ten Boom’s quote should read: ‘just because a mouse is in the cookie jar, doesn’t make him a cookie’
also, that commenter (Christian Identity Movement) WAS caught out . . .
And again, as I pointed out above, your faux compassion would seem (at least to those who don’t know you) much more sincere if you showed compassion for EVERYONE rather than just for the enemies of the gospel.
For instance, haven’t heard a peep out of you regarding this poor man whose life is in danger.
http://www.dennyburk.com/iranian-pastor-faces-execution-for-christian-faith/
Of course, he doesn’t deserve compassion, right?
Be peaceful, dear one. (snicker)
Christiane,
Upon further reflection, I’m not exactly sure of the point you are trying to make. I get the impression that you are promoting some sort of compassion for Islam while attempting to give credence to those holding to the belief that people like Kreivik represent fundamentalist Christianity. Something like that….but I’m not exactly sure.
Ed Stetzer has a fantastic article today about this subject. Even some in the liberal media herd are realizing the identification of Breivik as a Christian Fundamentalist was wrong.
It turns out Breivik isn’t a Christian at all. See David Wood’s YouTube video from Acts 17. David read Breivik’s manifesto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKEqM5bi8K4&feature=player_embedded