Christian Terrorism: “Christianity without Christ”
July 25, 2011, 1:10 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Matthew Schmalz of Holy Cross has one of the best reflections I have seen on the monstrous acts in Norway.
Is the perp sane or insane?
I don’t know.
I’m not a psychiatrist.
In the final analysis, perhaps it doesn’t matter — if Norway doesn’t have the death penalty?
This perp ain’t gonna’ be walkin’ the streets anytime soon!
Tobias Winright has a piece titled Massacres Are Never Moral that begins, interestingly:
Mathew Schmalz’s piece is interesting, and I wonder to what extent what he says might be applied to others on the Christian right engaged not in violence but in “culture wars.” How many Christians are truly following Jesus, and how many are just promoting their particular brand of “Christianity”?
I’ve been puzzled too about Breivik’s description of himself as a Christian, and by the media’s unquestioning acceptance of the characterization as if it somehow made sense. Schmalz points out that B. considers himself merely a “cultural” Christian, and I suppose that makes a bit more sense, if he is equates something called “Europe” with something called “Christendom,” and seeks to defend it. After all, we all know “cultural” (but non-practicing) Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, and for that matter (no doubt) Presbyterians; they have allegiances to certain traditions, without necessarily believing in their roots.
None of which should lead us to overlook the streak of violence that has all too often has accompanied Christianity, both in its dealings with non-Christians, and with the allegedly heterodox within its own ranks. Europe and America did not, after all, extend their reach over much of the globe by sending out Sunday school teachers or encounter group facilitators. But there’s nothing unique to Christianity here, and Islam did not expand into the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa, and the Iberian peninsula by holding a series of Quaker meetings.
Now that Angela Merkell and David Cameron (and perhaps others among leaders) have proclaimed the failure of “multiculturalism” I’d be interested in knowing how others understand that term.
I think I agree with Professor Clifford. The reason it makes more sense to characterize bin Laden as an “Islamic terrorist” than to characterize Breivik as a “Christian terrorist” is that bin Laden devoutly practiced Islam, whereas there is little evidence Breivik ever practiced Christianity.
Bin Laden abstained from alcohol and pig meat, prayed five times a day, made the pilgrimage to Mecca and had memorized the Qur’an. Breivik is not known to have regularly attended church, received any sacrament except Baptism, prayed regularly, or been at all familiar with the New Testament.
The important point is that if one engages in the spiritual practices of a religion then one’s actions may at least be suspected of reflecting the religion’s precepts; but not if one merely adopts the name of the religion as a fashion statement.
Well, the Pope and others have made arguments for the importance of Christianity not merely as a faith but also as the intellectual and social heritage of Europe. I saw those arguments as attempting to convince those who saw themselves as post-Christian with respect to their own religious beliefs of the importance of maintaining it as a framework for society and thought.
I think the category of “cultural Christian” or “cultural Catholic” makes sense, particularly in the European context.
From the article:
What is that supposed to mean?
It certainly seems as legit to call Breivik a Christian terrorist as it does to call bin Laden et al a Muslim terrorist, though I’m not sure either designation is appropriate or justified. No one was rushing to call the combatants in Northern Ireland “Catholic terrorists” or “Protestant terrorists.”
Many would argue that bin laden no more represents Islam than Breivik represents Christianity. Whether people are devout in their beliefs or practices doesn’t seem like a good yardstick. Many Muslims are “devout” yet act contrary to their faith, just as many Christians. One would argue that the folks at Westboro Baptist or the Koran-burning pastor, Terry Jones, in Gainesville, are as devout as Christians can get.
The cultural element seems to be as big a factor as the beliefs.
the maximum penalty for any crime in Norway is 21 years in prison.
To use the term “christian” for the shooter may be descriptive in some vague generic fashion but it does not strike me as very useful for analysis. It is like noting that he suffers from athlete’s foot.
What seems clear is that Breivik adopted a religious worldview and used religion as a vehicle or justification for his actions. We’ve seen that with killings of abortionists as well as terrorism. I think an interesting topic to explore is the relationship between religion and violence/extremism. This seems to echo the problem we’re having today in efforts to negotiate a solution to our budget woes, for example.
This seems to be a chicken-and-egg dilemma — which comes first, religion or extremism?
I’d also refer readers (subscribers, actually) to Scott Appleby’s excellent essay in an April 2010 Commonweal, “Fire & Sword: Does Religion Promote Violence?”
http://commonwealmagazine.org/fire-sword
Breivlk’s Facebook page was altered sometime after the shootings. There is a screenshot of his page that was taken immediately after the massacre and there are no profile entries for “Christian” or “Conservative”. Those entries appeared somewhat later. Of course, he could have added them himself.
What amazes is how we so easily declare that he has nothing to do with Christian history or culture. Ewtn still has programs or spokesman who declare that the Crusaders had victories over the Saracens because of the Rosary or other devotions. Bishop often rode with the Crusaders and clergymen were plentiful on military campaigns. Spellman wanted the hell bombed out of the Vietcong and actively supported that war. 6 million Jews are incinerated and the Vatican still negotiates with bishops who approve while the church was in the main silent. Give John Paul II credit for disapproving the Iraq war which American Christian neocons quickly went into rational prudential judgments about its rectitude. The Crusades are a glaring example in which a prominent saint along with the Christian world approved of the violence to regain the “Holy Land.” History is simple replete with violence approved by Christian leaders. Christian apologetics has been basically a cover-up. The sad reality is that too many of us have bought it.
I’m not sure anyone — here, at least — is declaring tht Breivik’s actions have nothing to do with Christian history or culture. Rather the opposite, in fact. The question is rather how useful it is to say that because X commits a crime, and X calls himself a Christian (or indeed anything else), that crime can usefully be classified as a “Christian” crime? How many of us condemn Buddhism and Shintoism because of Japan’s perpetration of the Nanjing Massacre of December 1937? How many of us condemn as particularly “secular” the crimes of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot, etc? (No doubt there are some who do so, but I haven’t seen them much around here).
To make too easy an equation in such difficult cases is a bit like saying that because a chief responsibility for the Holocaust rests on the shoulders of an ex-Catholic (Hitler, in other words), all other ex-Catholics are dangerous and wicked people.
We’d be in a parlous state indeed if this were true. Look at the Pew report.
I think there are a couple of issues here that need to be distinguished.
1. As Christians, I think we need to ask how someone could take our tradition and use it to justify such heinous acts–for ourselves, really. It is an intellectual autopsy. Not everyone is going to go to that extreme, but it helps to see where the extremes go wrong. I was extremely taken with the idea that the root problem is losing Jesus Christ–Christianity without Christ is just another ideology.
2. We are not personally morally responsible for everything that is done in the name of every group we belong to. But it seems to me that we are still in some way accountable, that is, we can give an account of our faith, our identity, and our commitments that makes it clear we repudiate the wrongful acts. That is a useful exercise. Accountability is a broader concept than responsibility. We can lament and express sorrow for the deeds of countrymen, and family members too, without being personally responsible for them.
I think it made sense for the Pope to apologize for the bad things done in the name of Catholicism, even though he wasn’t responsible for them personally. I think if we’re the body of Christ we can say that we’re sorry-that anyone who claimed to be part of our family did anything like this.
3. It’s not fair to scapegoat Christianity as such–or conservativism as such–for these crimes. But it is good, I think, for Christians and conservatives to take this opportunity to remind people of why their values do not, in fact, support these actions. It’s an act of social pedagogy.
There is a certain inclination in human beings, I think, to mistake parts and wholes. When we talk of “Christianity” or “Islam” or other complex social units we are especially inclined to do so. I suspect this inclination derives from our clan mentality which regularly pits “us” against “them”. Both the us and the them are considered to be entities which have a unity that they simply don’t possess. It’s really the problem of the social scientists more than anyone — how to make statistical generalizations about social units, how (if possible) to treat a social unit as if its parts were all alike..
Nicholas Clifford in his post above raises the issue of “multiculturalism’.
Given the issue of violence and Islam/Christianity, the following issue of “Ideas” on CBC radio featuring Irshad Manji author of The Trouble With Islam The program was titled “Human Rights and Multiculturalism: An Evening with Irshad Manji” and can be accessed at http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2011/06/29/human-rights-and-multiculturalism-an-evening-with-irshad-manji/