How we Reacted

(The Reactions to Oslo)

Enough time has passed since this summer's events in Oslo to give an opportunity to reflect.  The way we reacted says much about what we believe about ourselves, one other, and humanity at large.

In Oslo, Norway, "one man with a belief" (a quote the killer used) murdered nearly 100 strangers in cold blood  [I will not use his name.  He is unworthy of the attention.]

Reaction to the slaughter was predictable.  It was denounced and called tragic, and rightly so.

Assumptions and accusations abounded.

First, there was an expectation that it was a violent Islamist.  With the trends in such events since 9/11, this should come as no great surprise.

Next, Muslim groups were outraged that people made the assumption that Islamists were responsible.  Implication: only an anti-Muslim bigot would assume that Islamists were connected to such an act of violence.  No.  Wait.  Only an anti-Muslim racist, or this one Islamist who tried to claim responsibility for it, but retracted the claim when it turned out to be some blond local.  It seems al-Nasser didn't get the talking points.

One scapegoat down.  Three to go.

The (not-so) New Atheism has taught us to believe that the religion is the source of all the world's ills.  They apply some classic Monty Python logic:

"If she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood... and therefore ... a witch!"

And so... *drum roll*...  he must be a Christian extremist! 

Of course the killer is a Christian.  He even said so in his Manifesto!  (right?)

He writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:
“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 in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.  -- [red text / Underline is mine.] (source)

That statement's author cannot distinguish between affinity for the cultural trappings of Christian influence, and True faith in Christ.  Sadly, neither can many self-styled pastors.

Jesus himself teaches that it takes more than a *claim* of faith to actually *have* it.  People today are offended when someone asks them to authenticate their claims of Christian faith and practice.  But it needs to be done.  (Matt 7; Matt 23)  We're even taught to test *ourselves* to see whether we are in the faith.

Fortunately, the "Militant Christian" angle didn't gather very much momentum.  His association with the political right was either accepted without comment, or considered tangential to his motives, because that angle was quickly ignored, as well.  They soon went looking elsewhere.

The really interesting part is where people went next.

It was almost universally assumed that he was a "sick individual", he was "mentally ill", he was "troubled" or some other term that would identify him as having acted by reason of being mentally unfit to make a rational decision.

The nearly universal reaction could be summed up with the phrase "rational people don't do such things."

Mental illness is used as the last scapegoat, which is pretty unfair to all of those who, while suffering from mental illness do not endanger themselves or others.

It lead me to consider why so many commentators felt obliged to make that point.  Ultimately, if a monster of his magnitude is found to be "sane", it would have some very unsettling implications:

1. If  he's an otherwise rational person, these heinous actions would have been performed by man with a rational mind.
1. This would clash with our cherished belief in the basic 'goodness' of humanity.
1. If *not all* people are good,  then I am no longer *automatically* justified as good.
2. This would clash with our popular (idolatrous) belief in the supremacy of Reason.
2. If an otherwise rational person can commit atrocities, then the link between convictions and behavior proves that some belief really *is* objectively wrong, however 'sincerely' it may be held.  
1. This clashes with Post-Modern Pluralism and cultural Relativism.
3. If no clinical/biological explanation exists to distinguish him as being "inhuman" and "other"...
1. The gap between what he is, and who we are grows uncomfortably small.  It opens the possibility that we might (under some very rare and specific circumstances) be capable of making the same cold-blooded choices that he did. 
1.  ( And which of us wants to seriously consider ourselves capable of such dark motives 
4. If we cannot blame his actions on some medical or mental deficiency, we are left with the one explanation we have being trying to rule out and suppress since the Enlightenment
1. The Existence of Moral Evil.

Moses and our Modern Mandate

The Church Militant.

You don't really hear that term anymore, but there was a time when the phrase itself would stir hearts. Why? What does it mean?

First, what it does NOT mean. It does not mean politically or economically dominating a population and coercing them to adopt your beliefs, customs and cultures. When preachers reduce spreading the gospel to a Coke vs. Pepsi, marketing battle they've got it about as wrong as it can be.

The Church militant is comprised of those people standing upright on Terra Firma, who are standing in the Here and Now, and look forward to the Hereafter. They have been Redeemed by Christ, and do (or should) contend for the faith, to persuade "whosoever will" to trust in Christ.

No armies, no bullets. Just an eternal and infallible Word proclaimed by temporal and fallible men.

Let's look in Deuteronomy 7 for a glimpse of how this looks.

(As you know, today we are not fighting to win territory but the hearts and minds of men.)

Verse 1: When the Lord brings you into the land you are entering to take possession of it and clears away many nations before you (names them) seven nations more numerous and mighty then yourselves...

When ... brings ... are entering... take possession ... clears away

There is no ambiguity in this language. There is no IF, of possibly, or conditional promise. There is a directive, and they have been thrust into it. In fact, at this point, it has already begun, because God ordained that 2 other nations initiated hostilities with Israel, that God could hand them over to Israel. (Deut 2:30-32, 3:1-11) Which can remind us that often when someone picks a fight with us, it's because God wants us to win it.

The Lord is also taking an ownership role in verse 1. He is bringing, and He is clearing away therefore, this promise is not a function of our method, our tactics, our manpower, our budget or whatever else we might trust in. The odds are against us, and that's exactly the way God wants it so He can be recognized as the ultimate architect of the victory. Two Thousand years of Church history with Empires and Ideologies falling like dominoes show us that God is still doing this today.

V. 2 "And when the Lord gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.

Working from the assumption of success prior to the attempt, Moses is telling them what to do with their victory. Defeat them. Destroy them. Do we destroy them today? Not the people, since our battle is for the hears and minds of men. But we must clash with ideas and ideologies. No covenant, no mercy. We do it in the same way that MADD (for example) is aggressively targeting the practice of drunk driving with the intention of thoroughly destroying it. We offer the olive branch to people, but not to poisonous ideas.

Today, the words NAZI and KKK are so thoroughly stigmatized and repulsive that people want to distance themselves from any association with these ideas. That is the objective here.

v. 3 is a warning against intermarriage, and v. 4 explains why: because their children would turn to worship other gods.

Much of Israel's historical problem came from Syncretism. That is, a blending of Jewish and pagan religious beliefs and practices. Not much has changed today. We have imprecise belief, and do-it-yourself theology. We've got golden calves popping up all over the place. We make judgments about what scripture we will or will not accept based on what we assume about God.

What happens when you've become a god-crafter, when you tweak Him to suit your tastes? What is he trying to avoid by putting such a strong emphasis of not merely co-existing with these ideologies? v. 4 goes on to say that God's wrath would include ourselves.

Illustration: your city's rickety apartment block that even the rats and cockroaches have abandoned for safety reasons is scheduled to be knocked down. Signs are posted. Explosives are set. You ignore them and hop the fence in the dark of night, sneak into a bedroom on the top floor, and congratulate yourself on your room with a view. You took up residence in a condemned building, knowing that you risked being caught in the destruction, but ignored the warnings. The building comes down with you in it. Who is responsible? You or the city? You, naturally. That's more or less what this is trying to convey.

(Notice the shift from "I" to "you". God is responsible for verses 1 and 2a. Israel for 2b through 4.)

God gives the solution: BUT...

Doesn't the goodness of God just blaze through that one word?
Danger. Don't go there. Don't cross that line. Stay out of harms' way. I'm going to tell you what you can do to avoid it. Hear me. Heed the warnings.

What does he say we must do?

Break down their altars. Dash in pieces their pillars. Chop down their Asherim. Burn their carved images with fire.

Target the idols and ideologies. Reduce them to nothing. Do not let them hold sway over people. Do not make peace with them or keep them as trophies. Do not adapt them to your culture. If it strives to rival the position and place of God, hunt it down.

Why? (v. 6) Because you are a people holy to the Lord.

If we truly value the righteousness and holiness of God, if the souls of men are precious to us, we do them no favours by playing patty-cake with the very ideas and convictions that enslave them and hold them back from knowing and loving Jesus Christ.

If we saw a child about to drink a bottle of drain cleaner, we would intervene. Yet we see people drinking the spirit of this age all the time, and do nothing. Which has the more far-reaching effect?

Jesus Christ lived the perfect life, and conquered sin, and suffered death, and rose to life eternal, so that we too, could share in His victory over sin, and the eternal life He offers.

The way we participate in the Holiness that makes us His treasured possessions, isn't from keeping score on an ethical check-list. It's by accepting that His death in my place and yours is sufficient to satisfy the same wrath of a holy God that verse 4 warned of, and that his righteousness is freely given as a gift to us. One we can never earn and could never repay. We are not his debtors, but his children, if we trust in Jesus, and turn from our sin.