Last Friday (July 22, 2011), a bomb went off in Oslo killing eight people and injuring many more. Later, a gunman went on a shooting spree at an island youth camp in Norway, killing 68 people. The gunman was arrested and later claimed responsibility for both attacks.
When questioned by the police, Breivik claimed that his actions were intended to save his country and all of Europe from Marxist and Muslim infiltration. He said that the Labour Party was not doing enough to prevent this, and that his attack was aimed at weakening that party.
This issue has become important for Christians since Brievik claims to be one. This raises questions like, ‘Does Christianity promote such violence?’, yet anybody with a cursory grasp of the Bible will know that Christianity does not promote violence, but rather the love and self-sacrifice displayed by Christ (if you are thinking of the crusades as a counter-example I encourage you to click here). My heart goes out to those who lost loved ones on that day, and our church continues to pray for the people of Norway, that they will find comfort in the Divine Comforter and Grand Equaliser of all things Jesus Christ. However, my intention in this article is to dissect to some degree Breiviks own beliefs, liberal media’s agenda, and then ask why these kinds of things happen on a practical level.
The liberal media loves making up its own labels for things, like ‘fundamentalist Muslim’(which most Muslims themselves denounce as a category), however in this case the media wants to portray Breivik as a ‘Fundamentalist Christian’ perhaps as some sort of attack on conservative Christianity.
Consider the following quote from Breivik:
“It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). (emphasis in original)
So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter))[i]”
“As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.”[ii]
“I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment.[iii]”
There is a lot more where that came from, but I think it proves the point, a fundamentalist Christian? No. Perhaps a nominal, cultural Christian. He is as Christian as the majority of people born in Europe think they are, based on the fact that they are born in a State that formerly had Christianity as a State religion.
The philosopher Nietzsche observed how the elites of Europe in his day wanted the moral culture of Christianity without the actual doctrine and practise of Christianity. In another article I asked what the future of South Africa will be, as we seek to have the benefits of a Christian society, without the foundation of actual Christianity, what we see in Breivik is the far right-wing approach to achieve that, while in Marxism we see the left-wing attempt to achieve it.
What can we except in the world, as it loses its grip on Christian truth, but wishes to hold onto its benefits? Perhaps more lost individuals like Breivik, along with many other manifestations of frustration as structures-wished-for collapse without the foundation required, that of Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.