So the New York Times described Norway’s mass murderer with its headline: “Christian Extremist is Charged in Norway.”
Does the fact that Breivik said he was a Christian make him one? Does the fact that he dressed in a police uniform make him a police officer?
We shall know they are Christians, the song tells us, by their love.
Is there anything in Breivik’s actions that suggests love?
A minimal requirement of a Christian is that one be a follower of Christ. Christ’s two commands were to love God with all our heart, mind, and soul, and to love our neighbor.
Anders Breivik admits that he has no relationship with Christ and that he does not pray. Neither, does it seem, that he participated in any kind of formal, communal Christian worship.
Breivik’s actions display nothing but hatred.
Describing Breivik as a “Christian” is more a sign of the animus of the NY Times than the allegiance of Anders Breivik.
The Times, for instance, could have just as easily used the headline “Norwegian Extremist Charged in Killings.” But that headline doesn’t carry quite the same message does it?
Breivik is free to put on whatever garb he wants – that of a “knight,” a “policeman,” or a “Christian,” but it doesn’t make him one. It’s a macabre masquerade – a kind of Halloween costume gone terribly wrong.
Breivik is no Christian. He’s no knight, and he’s no policeman. He’s a type of poser.
When Breivik entered the Workers’ Youth League camp, he did so by posing as a police officer, with an evil intent. He entered the camp as a predator posing as a protector.
Knights and police officers don’t kill the people they’re called to protect.
True Christians recognize that they are born into the world at war with someone. That someone is the devil. Breivik, however, since he was not an authentic Christian, had no devil to hate. Instead, he leveled his hatred toward the Muslims and the Euro politicians who support them.
The Jihadist is our enemy. Islam is not.
Planning mass murder, hiring prostitutes, detonating bombs, and killing youth…. These are neither the actions of a Christian, nor a knight.
There is such a thing as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and then there’s something far worse – a wolf in shepherd’s clothing.
As we well know, there’s nothing worse than a predator priest or a rogue cop. Breivik is just such a type of poser.
Use the word “quisling” today, and most young people will probably incorrectly think that you’re making some obscure reference to something from “Harry Potter.” It’s not a word that’s commonly known today.
During World War II, Norwegian politician Vidkun Quisling assisted Nazi Germany as it conquered his own country, so that he could rule as a collaborationist himself. He became one of the country’s most infamous traitors.
Just four days later, the Daily Mail used the term “Quisling” as a synonym for traitor. The name became a noun and stuck.
“To writers, the word Quisling is a gift from the gods,” said The Times, April 19, 1940 editorial. “If they had been ordered to invent a new word for traitor… they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters. Actually it contrives to suggest something at once slippery and tortuous.”
And so, in that vein, I propose that another Norwegian name become a noun.
A “Breivik,” meaning a predator who poses as a protector.
If writers had been ordered to invent a new word for such a poser… they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters. Actually it contrives to suggest something at once predatory and despicable, and… not at all Christian.