Sightings returns to work after a month away. Start with a timely quiz. Q: What do the following have in common? Anders Behring Breivik, killer of scores of innocents in Norway; assassins Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK) and Sirhan Sirhan (RFK); serial killers: Dennis Rader (Kansas, murdered 10); Charles Starkweather (Nebraska, 11); Jeffrey Dahmer (Wisconsin, 17); and Dylan Kiebold (Columbine, CO, 13).
Answer: they were all Lutheran Christians.
Regular readers of Sightings know that I try to be “objective,” “fair-minded,” and the like, so I remind subscribers of this in my duty to be a conscientious reporter and commentator. Ergo, this register of crazy villains is not here to give Lutherans a bad name. If I weren’t “objective” and “fair-minded,” I’d give the game away and admit what some have detected: that I like to give Lutherans a good name. So why bring this up?
First, a word about the use of “Christian” and, specifically, “Lutheran” with these names. Read their biographies or news reports at the time of their crimes and you will see that the label has to be qualified with reminders that some were Lutheran because their mothers placed them in a Lutheran orphanage or academy or they attended a Lutheran church and its educational agencies when young. We’d have to call them “accidental” or “automatic” or “casual” Lutherans somewhere long the way. But the label sticks.
Think of Breivik, who was one of the 90,757,570 reported Lutherans in the world (as of 2005) and who must have been one of the 3,991,545 members of the State Church in Norway, which is Lutheran, as 79.2 percent of Norwegians are. It is hard not to be baptized and a registered member of that Church. Then think further; it is hard to picture that Breivik was anything but one of the 97 percent of the members who never shows up. That he caught many ideas from this religious background is clear from citations in his monstrous manifesto and elsewhere. But he probably could not even recite Luther’s Catechism and may not have been seen at the communion table since who knows when—if ever.
Never mind. Split seconds after the murders were reported, many American commentators, especially prominent Islamophobe or Generic-Muslim-haters assumed and announced that al-Qaeda legions had done the killing. The implied message and command; “Get ‘em,” “‘em” being Muslims anywhere and everywhere. Then, split seconds after his “Christian” religious identity became the prime subject on cable TV and in the press it was turn-around time as formerly embarrassed Muslim world(s) played “Gotcha!” to embarrass Christians. Never any to take these attacks lying down, the embarrassed Christians quickly got back into action to prove that Breivik wasn’t really a Christian and that he was a nut, and only Muslims were sane attackers. See Thursday’s column for analysis by University of Chicago Divinity School’s Dean Margaret Mitchell.
The back-and-forth polemics continues. To what point? Each “side” finds it important and urgent to use a broad brush to paint the “other” most monstrously, in order to deflect criticism from themselves and to assure themselves of their own virtue. That obscures what should be a clear-eyed critique of “self-and-other” among all when clarity is so important. The instant and inaccurate portrayal of “the other” makes the self look good in his or her own eyes. It does not provide the accurate data about and sane perceptions of people we need to understand more than we need to fire people up, motivated by Islamophobia and Christianophobia, neither of which needs more heat in our flammable or inflammable world.
Nicola Menzie, “Norway Shooting Suspect ‘Christian’ Faith Heavily Debated,” Christian Post, July 29, 2011.
Christopher Hitchens, “A Ridiculous Rapid Response: Why did so many ‘experts’ declare the Oslo attacks to be the work of Islamic terrorists?” Slate, July 24, 2011.
Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author, and may not necessarily reflect those of the publishers of Religion News Blog.
We appreciate your support
Our website includes affiliate links, which means we get a small commission — at no additional cost to you — for each qualifying purpose. For instance, as an Amazon Associate Religion News Blog earns from qualifying purchases. That is one reason why we can provide this service free of charge.