Quite a tall order there, Rod, especially when us lefties are constantly being accused of disloyalty and not towing the line for your abstractions without even being put into that situation.
Should a rape victim allow the rape or should the victim insist on death instead?
Again, this I believe, is an individual's choice.
Personally, I'll die before I renounce Christ. But even if you did, remember what Christ taught. The ONLY unpardonable sin is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I guess it would also depend on whether or not you truly disavow Him in your heart. I guess only time will tell for Centani and Wiig.
"Should a rape victim allow the rape or should the victim insist on death instead?"
Having a little difficulty in the analogy department today, tovart?
I cannot pretend to understand the Christian perspective on this, and while I always hesitate to use argument by analogy, I find tovart's mention of rape a telling point.
Life is not about abstracts. Life is about the here and now.
I can pretend, a bit, to understand the reactions to trauma, having some professional training for helping and exposure to people who are in extremis. I find it reprehensible at the least for Christians who have not been there to automatically denounce or decry those who have, when they have chosen life, and especially when they have been unable to be rational about it afterwards.
Trauma does serious damage to the psyche. Perhaps you know a post-traumatic stress syndrome sufferer. If not, if you've never encountered this, then I respectfully suggest you avoid expressing an opinion about it. You cannot know it without seeing it or, gods forbid, experiencing it.
I would choose life. I would choose to carry my faith in my heart and lie through my teeth to survive the experience, because no matter what you say about faith, it dies when the body and mind dies, and there is little to depend on beyond that very faith for what comes after death.
Remember, rape is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of violence. It has nothing to do with love or respect. Any acknowledgement of honor to the perpetrators of such an act, whether it be physical or mental, is to acknowledge that they have a right to do it. That is insanity, and not worthy of honesty in any regard. It means that you offer honesty and integrity to people who have neither, who thought of neither when they abducted you and raped you. As I said, that is insane.
Instead of focusing on what these guys acted under extreme duress, a better question would be: "How am I witnessing Christ in my daily life in the here and now? It's indecent, if not sinful, to judge these guys' souls.
Okay -- should you hand your money or car over to the guy holding you at gun point, or should you say "never mind, just shoot me, now?"
tovart |
Caedmon, Tovart's analogy is more apt than you think. More than once I have heard people argue that the submission of a rape victim when resistance would have been futile constituted consent, making her "guilty" (Of what? Wanting to live?) As for the FoxNews guys, I hope that if I found myself in their place, I would not capitulate. But I do not know whether I would be good enough, and even if I did I think the proper response to those weaker than I am should be pity rather than hatred or contempt. Warren himself, by his own admission, doesn't know how he would acquit himself if put to the test. To me, that makes him worse than the pharisee in the temple--who at least KNEW that he was not as other men. Besides, I think it is flat nonsense to say that it doesn't matter whether such a person has a religion. I think only a fool would die for a "West" that he could understand only in purely material terms.
David Warren said: But if I capitulated, from fear of pain and death, I would be deeply ashamed of what I had done.
And Rod said: I would hope and pray that I would have the courage to die for Christ.
And then Billiam said: Personally, I'll die before I renounce Christ.
I don't get this at all. Dying for Christ? What virtue is there in resisting unto death a murderous whacko's demand that you "renounce your faith?" Doesn't Christ know what's in your heart? Does Christ really feel abandoned by these Fox newsmen? Do the newsmen now, or did they for a nano-second, consider themselves Muslim? Does God consider then Muslim?
When I read this all I think is that you guys are all playing the same game. "Say uncle, say uncle!" "I'd rather die!"
Warren also says: [Ask yourself]what you would do [if told to renounce Christ to save your skin]. And before you give any quick or clever answer, recall that our whole civilization stands or falls on what you decide.
To me this is the same general mindset that the Islamic terrorists have. Not only do you have to be [insert religion here], you also have to show the world how [insert religion here] you are. It's not enough to hold your faith in your heart or pray in private, is it?
I'm just glad that God is not made in our little image.
I can understand the choice Centanni & Wiig made. I might make a similar one in that case, publicly complying in order to live, but knowing in my heart that my allegiance is not to the god of my tormentors.
I do have to say, however, that the witness of martyrs (past and present) is compelling. It speaks of belief in something greater than human life, faith that fidelity in this life will be rewarded in the next in a manner which defies comparison.
These events also demonstrate one other fact- Islamic fascism which condones torture, kidnapping, and forced conversions is not the moral equivalent of other cultures which utilize deadly force as a last resort and proclaim freedom to, among other things, worship according to one's convictions rather than another's dictates.
Quite a tall order there, Rod, especially when us lefties are constantly being accused of disloyalty...Again, this I believe, is an individual's choice.
tovart, you had me hook, line, and sinker for a minute. I seriously thought you were making a parody! You have a lefty saying: "...this I believe, is an individual's choice"? Isn't this a summary of lefty argument in the very worst light?
Perhaps we could spare a lot of discussion here by simply having a button for lefties to push: just pick the topic, and it spits out: " _________ I believe, is an individual's choice!
Evidence? Proof? Logic? Who needs it? My belief and choice is all you guys should need. QED.
tovart writes:
Okay -- should you hand your money or car over to the guy holding you at gun point, or should you say "never mind, just shoot me, now?"
You don't get this at all, do you?
Read John 3:16, then read the accounts of the Last Supper, Christ's Agony in the garden, and then the Crucifixion.
This is neither a matter of renouncing stuff, nor of choosing rape over death. It's far more grave than either.
How many Westerners have as little understanding of this as you will determine the probability of our ultimate doom.
"I would choose life. I would choose to carry my faith in my heart and lie through my teeth to survive the experience, because no matter what you say about faith, it dies when the body and mind dies, and there is little to depend on beyond that very faith for what comes after death."
With this statement, no Christian alive could agree. Faith does not die with my body. My faith is my whole life, body and soul. I cannot turn away from it, or else I am dead already. I must live out my faith, even to death by torture. If I do not live my faith out even to that, then I am already dead.
I don't know how I'd behave for sure - no one can, and Rod's right, we pray "lead us not into temptation" with good cause. But the Church has always taught that martyrdom is the highest calling and the greatest crown that a Christian can win. It is better to die a peasant martyr than a pope in bed. So no, I can't say for sure how I'd behave, but I know how I think I would, and I certainly know how I ought. Pray God that I might die a thousand times of before I renounce my faith.
"To me this is the same general mindset that the Islamic terrorists have. Not only do you have to be [insert religion here], you also have to show the world how [insert religion here] you are. It's not enough to hold your faith in your heart or pray in private, is it?"
Though I suspect you are saying this somewhat sarcastically, you have hit the nail on the head. The word martyr means witness. In his "On the Incarnation" St. Athanasius uses as his prime argument for the truth of the Resurrection these witnesses of Christ, even unto death. For death must be defeated if Christians spit on it, mock it, and trample all over it as they do. Now I don't care what you think of that argument, but look at what the mentality behind it is. My love for Christ, my determination to live out my faith even unto death, and the fact that not even my life is worth a farthing without Christ - all these steel me to accept death rather than deny my God.
Lastly, a word of comfort to those who do deny Christ when threatened. St. Peter denied Christ thrice before the cock crowed, thereby rejecting the crown of martyrdom. But what's the difference between Peter & Judas? Judas went out and hanged himself, Peter went out and wept. Then Peter rededicated himself to his Lord, in the light of the Resurrection. In the end, St. Peter won for himself the martyr's crown on an upside-down cross, because he professed himself unworthy to die as his Savior died.
The word martyr means witness. In his "On the Incarnation" St. Athanasius uses as his prime argument for the truth of the Resurrection these witnesses of Christ, even unto death. For death must be defeated if Christians spit on it, mock it, and trample all over it as they do. Now I don't care what you think of that argument, but look at what the mentality behind it is. My love for Christ, my determination to live out my faith even unto death, and the fact that not even my life is worth a farthing without Christ - all these steel me to accept death rather than deny my God.
Serious question here: Do you think it's possible that poor, young, disaffected Christian men with this attitude will start to see some glory in dying for Christ? And maybe taking out a few godless people with them?
Anne, Christ didn't say to kill the unbeliever, Mohammed did. Please do not equate true Christianity with Islam. That is NOT what Christ taught. I simply will never deny my belief in God and Jesus. To equate that with these nut cases is sad. I also in no way judge Centani and Wiig. I don't envy them their situation.
Hautblossom: No. Because murder/suicide is the most grievous sin in all Christianity and is most certainly not a witness to Christ. And, as I said before, which got lost in the threads, our witness to Christ today is what counts, not this kind of navel-gazing "What would I do?" analysis, which is pointless and a distraction from what living a Christian life.
Dreher: "If I had capitulated, the shame of it would haunt me for the rest of my life."
But only until you see your children get married and babysit your grandkids.
Yeah, great article saying martyrdom is worthwhile.
I'm pretty sure the "witnessing" that italian commited did not make the moslem fanatics convert to christianity. So maybe it should haunt you that he just wasted his existance for nothing. But hopefully it showed those jihadis just how crazy martyrdom is...
Sayyid Qutb was a brilliant, white-hot Islamist fanatic who became the chief ideologist of worldwide Islamic revolution. He was an evil man. But he was brave enough to choose the gallows rather than renounce his Islamist convictions. I would suppose he won many converts to his cause by giving his life for it. He showed by making the supreme sacrifice that it's better to die than to renounce one's core beliefs.
I have on the wall of my office a print of Holbein's portrait of St. Thomas More. More left his wife a widow and his children fatherless by choosing execution rather than renounce his faith. He is remembered today as a martyr, a saint and a hero. Who remembers the English bishops who capitulated to the King's command?
James Freeman, I was being sarcastic about the hijack situation. Apparently, wasted. I was criticized for the rape analogy which is just as an extreme situation (and actually more real)as is Rod's latest dilemma.
He wants us to cave and give up our way of life when our leaders expect us to do so for security purposes (spying, limitless executive power, etc), which is, in my opinion just as much of an element of our "doom" as is my lack of understanding of prospective martyrdom, -- but now in some abstract form is very adament about holding our "Western" ground when threatened with death at the hands of the Muslims. I find it contradictory to everything he has promulgated.
We're supposed to die now and not submit, but up till now, we are supposed to submit because it was for our security.
I think I just realized why we are in serious danger of losing this war. We can't even agree that it is noble to be willing to die for one's convictions.
It really is a serious handicap for us, if we are willing to do anything to cling to life, and they are willing to give up their lives for what they believe. (Their willingness to take others with them is another matter.) If you have nothing larger than yourself that you are willing to die for, do you really have anything that you are willing to live for?
Thank you, elmo and Billiam, for your sincere answers to my question. If it's true that Mohammed instructs Muslims to kill unbelievers (I don't know the Koran, but I've heard it said that that's a misinterpretation), then that's a clear difference between Christianity and Islam.
I still find "dying for Christianity" a strange concept. What do you actually accomplish by it? Rod says, win converts like Sayyid Qutb or be remembered as a martyr like Thomas More. But those don't seem to me to be spiritual gains. I know that in the past, Christian martyrs caught people's imagination and helped strengthen people's faith. I can see the value in that. But today, I don't feel that. It seems like grand-standing to me. It seems like pride.
HB
HB,
The point is to be true to the witness of who you know God to be, not pride or to be "remembered as a martyr." There are actually martyrs today, as well as in the past.
It seems a foreign concept to many of us in our free societies, but there have been (and continue to be) instances where witnessing to truth is literally a matter of life and death. If I truly believe that Jesus is the Savior, the Son of God, and someone tells me to renounce this belief or they will end my life, I have a crisis of faith. Will I deny Christ? Will I witness to the truth I know, even upon pain of death? What do I truly believe, and how deep is my conviction?
This is the crux of the martyrdom issue, not whether or not somebody in the future will look upon me as some kind of heroic figure.
Dreher:"I have on the wall of my office a print of Holbein's portrait of St. Thomas More. More left his wife a widow and his children fatherless by choosing execution rather than renounce his faith. He is remembered today as a martyr, a saint and a hero. Who remembers the English bishops who capitulated to the King's command?"
Who remembers the six lutherans More had burned at the stake, and many others who were imprisoned and interrogated through the use of torture. Obviously not you, Now go and tell us more on how brilliantly evil Sayyid Qutb was...
tovart writes:
James Freeman, I was being sarcastic about the hijack situation. Apparently, wasted. I was criticized for the rape analogy which is just as an extreme situation (and actually more real)as is Rod's latest dilemma.
Yes, sarcasm from the parody-proof does tend to get lost in the absurd shuffle that is Western culture nowadays.
M_David writes:
Perhaps we could spare a lot of discussion here by simply having a button for lefties to push: just pick the topic, and it spits out: " _________ I believe, is an individual's choice!
So is this then an ultimatum by that Culture of Life? -- which is now, just die for your beliefs?
Say, then if a family man opts to try to survive for his family, he is what? I mean, besides by implication, a coward, or a survivor? Or an infidel?
What is the problem with people acting on their own volition in any given situation with some people?
Who makes up these rules?
David J. White: "If you have nothing larger than yourself that you are willing to die for, do you really have anything that you are willing to live for?"
Beliefnet just had an article about atheists who have served in the armed forces.
So, your question is not rhetorical.
And rod's article was not even about atheists.
But the real question is, are you "highly convicted" christians seriously going to criticize others for saving their lives by "converting to islam", just like those christians who criciticized other christians in the 3rd century who pinched a little incense for Pax Deorum, to show off your own grandiose piety?
If murder/suicide is a sin as someone asserted (and I certainly don't disagree) couldn't the arguement made that refusing to superficially submit to this kind of demand under duress is essentially the same as suicide.
Now free these men have an opportunity to tell their story and are a living example of the clear hypocrisy of the Islamist cause. Convert at the barrel of a gun? That's not authentic religion...Islamic, Christian, or otherwise.
I would argue that nothing is authentically religous about allowing yourself to be killed, your wife widowed and children orphaned because you were too proud to utter a few words that you did not mean in your heart.
It is not as if these men chose to join with the terrorist cause to save themselves nor did they allow another to be punished for their actions/beliefs, and clearly they remained true to their own belief system even as they were duping the thugs holding them captors.
I guess I just don't see what value martyrdom in this case. Best case, as Warren points out, is a emotional bit of video tape. Best case. Hardly worth the loss of two human beings. Sorry this isn't the stuff of St. Thomas Beckett.
As the Tragically Hip put it: "Martyrs don't do much for me Though I enjoy them vicariously After you."
In other words, if you actually believe these two men betrayed their faith or the fight against terror, then I humbly suggest YOU go to the middle east and offer to let yourself be killed for not "converting".
Amen, Jeff.
For me, the question Rod poses is pretty easy - I'd renounce in a heartbeat. There are people back home counting on my being alive. God put me here to love and care for them, and I can't accept that he would want me to deny the calling He gave me for anything. It wouldn't be a conversion of the heart, but then the terrorists are pretty simple if they truly expect that. I certainly don't think Western civilization will stand or fall based on the decision of one humble little writer who chooses to go home to her husband and children.
But then again, I suppose I wouldn't be renouncing my core beliefs in that case. Perhaps no one ever does renounce their core beliefs, and it all comes down to just deciding (or discovering) what is really the most important thing in the world to you. And I don't believe anybody should be judged too harshly if they decide that religion - any religion - isn't it.
Anne: The blood of the martyrs inspired many to join the church and as well it continues to strengthen followers. People are being killed for their faith to this very day in places where Christianity is not welcomed.
Somebody asked if it was not de facto suicide if your witness to Christ will lead somebody to kill you. The answer is no. We are not responsible for the sins of others. The other guy is committing the crime by killing me, I'm not committing sin by saying yes, I believe in Christ.
Someone should write a great book for today's Christians, and any interested others, about the importance of what we say and especially what we promise.
I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone has yet commented on the implication of renouncing Christ and verbally embracing Islam, in the context of VOWS.
For some Christians, there were probably promises made when they were baptized as adolescents or later in life. For people in my own Lutheran tradition, vows were made on our behalf when, as babies, we were baptized, and then when we were confirmed we made vows on our own. We _promised_ faithfulness, in the presence of witnesses (and with the help of God).
I grieve over the fact that in my church, many youths make these vows, take Communion for the first time, and are gone.
But in itself, such making of vows is of the greatest moment. I am called upon not only to confess my personal faith but to "bet the farm" on God: that, among other things, if and when I am put to the test, HE will be strong within me.
I suepct that a very great deal indeed of our wretchedness today is due to our not being people of our word. Marriage vows are easily forgotten, to cite one example. I'll let y'all think of others.
I believe that if sizable numbers of people suddenly and seriously resolved - - with the help of GOD - - to keep the vows they have already made, right as of this minute... you might see some good things happening in our neighborhoods, cities, and nation.
However, let's remember that the most important promises of all are those of God, Who has bound Himself by His promises, which are set forth in the Bible.
May God by His Word and Spirit call His people to faithfulness to their word, repentance for our ghastly casualness about what we say...
... but may He especially open our hearts to believe and trust Him for what He has promised.
The topic, as introduced by Rod, and judging from some of the comments here, is disobeying Christ's admonition not to ask to be put to the test and invites a sort of pride by tempting people to write stirring words in favor of a gesture that they haven't been asked to make. Being a martyr is demanded of all Christians not in the romantic, action-movie, glorious heroics sense of being killed by the hands of those who hate Christ, but in a quiet, day-by-day martyrdom of the flesh -- our ego, our cravings, etc., and incessant praise of our Lord. The action hero death is one most of us will not face, but it is the only martyrdom deemed worth talking about here. Why is that? Some here have written they will die rather than deny Christ. By the way, didn't Peter tell Christ that very same thing? Read Mark 14:30-31. I don't think you get it. If you can't live your daily, ordinary, peaceful, suburban American life in martyrdom, what makes you think you would do the same at the barrel of a gun?
I find it difficult to criticize the two captives for what they did or did not do with guns pointed at their head. We can all appreciate heroes and heroism, but I find it unfair to criticize others for not being heroic. I like to think that I would be heroic, given the opportunity/dilemma, but one can never know.
But I have no doubt that the heroic thing to do (for a Christian) would be to not capitulate, and to proclaim Christ to the death. Die for Christ, indeed. I would hope and pray for the courage to respond this way.
For these two captors, I give thanks that they are alive and safe. No further comment from those of us in the peanut gallery is appropriate, IMHO.
If you can't live your daily, ordinary, peaceful, suburban American life in martyrdom, what makes you think you would do the same at the barrel of a gun?
Because it's generally easier to commit minor sins than the gravest of sins. Denying Christ in everyday life is a smaller sin than denying him on pain of death.
The soft denials of Christ in everyday life go mostly unnoticed. It's easy to rationalize around small denials, especially when we expect that there will be time to repent.
The gun concentrates the mind. Put a gun to someone's head and they know they're faced with a Peter-in-the-courtyard moment. But offer a promotion at work in return for a soft denial and, sadly, too many of us would snatch it up.
I'd renounce in a heartbeat. There are people back home counting on my being alive. God put me here to love and care for them, and I can't accept that he would want me to deny the calling He gave me for anything.
Allow me to translate this for you:
"Let us do evil, that good may result." (Romans 3:
Christianity is not compatable with consequentialism. That's Christian Moral Theology 101. This is not complicated.
Very interesting comments here. I agree with David J. White that it's distressing to see people argue that having the courage to profess one's beliefs even to the point of death is somehow NOT noble. The words "soft," "weak" and "decadent" spring to mind.
I still find "dying for Christianity" a strange concept. What do you actually accomplish by it?
Let's remember that martyrdom is originally a Christian concept, even though it's been hijacked and sickly distorted by Muslims (who have tacked on the noxious idea of warriors killed in "holy" battle as martyrs).
If I hold fast to my faith in Christ even when it causes me great suffering, and even if I am killed for it, I witness to the fact that THIS life is no more than a pale shadow of the glorious world to come, not something to cling to.
If I fail that test, even when real heroism is required to pass it, I witness to the fact that the cares and loves of this life mean more to me than life in Christ. That's why the early Christians regarded capitulation under torture by the pagan authorities as the gravest of sins, forgivable (if at all) only after a long life of intense penance and evidence of deep sorrow.
That, agree with it or not, is Christianity 101. Apparently it's not well understood in 21st century America.
"Denying Christ in everyday life is a smaller sin than denying him on pain of death."
Really? Can you cite the Catechism where it says this?
elmo makes an important cautionary point, by the way:
Most of us will never face a martyr's death, and for Christians seeking out martyrdom is always evil.
However, Christians are all called to live a kind of martyrdom in our ordinary, hum-drum, workaday lives. And unless we strive faithfully to live it there, we certainly won't receive the grace to make the heroic but right choice if ever we're faced with an ultimatum to convert or die.
The imagination is a wondrous thing. It fills in the gaps when we lack data, it helps us anticipate possibilities, and it is a very tempting path to the intellectual gallows.
The suicide bombers are misnamed. They are soldiers fighting to kill an enemy. While it does seem to have become a fad, with the attendant assumptions about ego, it has also proven to sometimes (not always) be effective.
Check your histories of WWII, just as an example. Therein lie stories about men who technically committed suicide in order to hurt the enemy, sometimes well out of proportion to the usual ability of a single soldier. While we can only speculate about what the enemy they killed thought of them, we call them heros.
And I bet that some of them were Christians.
The story of Rodger Young.
"Rodger was bound and determined to get that Japanese machine gun. In his position he had to know he was going to get killed. When I gave the order to retreat, I saw one of the boys beside him poke him with a stick and tell him to draw back but he had his sight on that pillbox and started after it." Emphasis added.
rjak's response to my words about faith forced me to look at them again, and I see I erred in my phrasing, for which I apologize. My intent was to emphasize living faith. My follow up now includes a similar comment about martyrdom: dying to save the lives of comrades in arms is a worthy martyrdom, whether one does it in the name of a god or not. Dying to save one's ego from facing an existential situation is, for me, the worst sort of waste, because for all the future conversions of faith it may inspire, it did nothing in its moment but get one person killed.
Despite that, I am not denigrating the sacrifices of the many whom Christendom holds up as exemplars. What I am commenting on is that times have changed drastically since then, and the death of one person, Christian or otherwise, is rarely of any consequence outside that person's immediate family. Tote up the last, oh, 25 people canonized by the RC and any other sect that does that. How many of them were martyred in a violent death?
Thank you simon. I was just about to add to what I wrote that if you lack the courage to martyr yourself in everyday life, you most likely are not going to pass the test when an ultimatum is made on pain of death but I think you said it better.
What I am commenting on is that times have changed drastically since then, and the death of one person, Christian or otherwise, is rarely of any consequence outside that person's immediate family.
I think the death of John Paul II (who almost was martyred at the hands of a Turkish gunman, by the way) refutes the notion that people don't care about the death of others pretty nicely. Not to mention the deaths of other public figures who were not religious figures, such as Princess Diana, the Crocodile Hunter, etc.
By the way, JPII has said that in the 21st century the church has become a church of martyrs. Charles Foucald. Edith Stein. Maximilian Kolbe. Charles Lwanga. Maria Goretti. Andrew Kim Taegon. Paul Chong Hasang. These are all 20th century martyrs, among more than a 10,000, that are recently recognized by the Church.
http://www.osv.com/periodicals/s...cle.asp?
pid=355
Of course, that should have read in the 20th century ... The 21st century is just getting started. 
The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Soldiers.
In Vietnam an American unit came under enemy fire and ended up huddling for cover with some local civilians. A grenade flew into the midst of them and the Foolish Soldier threw himself upon it saving the others' lives at the expense of his own.
And he was buried with the Medal of Honor and a sewage treatment plant was named for him.
Likewise a second unit came under fire and ended up huddling for cover with some locals and a grenade came into the midst of him. The Wise Soldier picked up one of the locals and covered the grenade with him, thus saving his own life and the life of his comrades at the meager cost of one useless foreigner.
He came home to his wife and family and lived happily ever after.
Martyr is Greek for STUPID!
Franklin writes: the death of one person, Christian or otherwise, is rarely of any consequence outside that person's immediate family.
This proves the opposite of his point. It is precisely the "existential situation" that gives meaning to death, and thus to life. If the only value of our life (and consequence of our death) is to that of our immediate family, then our lives and deaths are exactly meaningless -- because our immediate family will also all eventually die. After about 50 years, our impact on this world is pretty minimal indeed -- no more than random luck. Like Ozymandias.
If our lives have any meaning whatsoever, the existential situation must itself have importance -- whether it occurs in a forest by ourselves, or in a situation that "inspires conversions".
Of course, whether our lives have meaning is the big question of faith, isn't it? Sorry, but I have faith that my life has inherent meaning and value. Now to figure out how to do it right.
Christianity is not compatable with consequentialism. That's Christian Moral Theology 101. This is not complicated.
This strikes me as the core of the problem. Consequentialist ethics are the only sort most modern Westerners would recognize as ethics at all. Your justifications for martyrdom sound mostly like deontological ('duty') ethics, naturally, though I suppose virtue ethics could do the same job. But either way, you'll have to sell your audience on a new understanding of what makes an action right or wrong, before you can sell them on martyrdom.
According the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, a martyr for Christ is willing to witness for peace even unto death. Nothing personal, but David Warren seems angry. Now as far as I'm concerned a Christian in that situation can be ever bit the martyr he hopes to become even if he is angry. (Or for that matter even if he manages to take one or two of his captors with him.) That is unless perhaps he's hoping to become a Christian martyr.
Pax vobiscum / May peace be with you all.
I don't see anything wrong with Warren's first column. The impression I get is that he is condemning the act of apostasy, and more particularly the attitude that would justify it. That's not the same as judging the souls of the two journalists.
I think that Elmo and Simon are absolutely right, though, in cautioning that, if we are not faithful in small things, we probably won't be faithful in big things. It's like thinking that we will be able to run a marathon without training up to it first.
Also, I think that we tend to see martyrdom as something that feels glorious and heroic to the martyr at the time. Maybe sometimes, but I'm guessing that often, to the person in the middle of the situation, it just feels ugly and pointless. It takes virtue and moral clarity to see the situation for what it is, instead of for what it feels like. Without these, it's going to be pretty easy to rationalize caving in.
There is an interesting comparison to be made with the English Reformation. In that instance, the easiest way to survive was to go along with whichever faith was on top at the moment. But (on each side) there were people who refused, and those are the people we know about and admire today, along with (sometimes) their opponents and betrayers. During the reign of Elizabeth, the culture and faith of the entire country was changed because people went along. If that is our fate, would we do better? If martyrdom has a purpose, it is the salvation of our own souls. The witness to others is not the primary purpose, although it is an inevitable result. And the salvation of our own souls is our first responsibility.
Elmo,
I enjoy reading your contributions without exception, so with that I hope you can forgive my pique at your misquoting of me.
First and foremost, there is no logical or actual equivalence (emphasis added) between my "is rarely of any consequence" and your "people don't care". Indeed, if you return to my original context, you have ended up inadvertantly supporting my point, not refuting it, but rather awkwardly at best.
Context is my other point. I introduce my thought with "I am not denigrating the sacrifices of the many whom Christendom holds up as exemplars." You go on to name the very people I refer to in my introductory statement.
I enjoy the challenges to my statements, but not when they swing at the air and force me to ask the challenger to reread my original statements. As an incurably longwinded writer, I almost never state my entire thought with just one sentence... though I must submit that very few people are capable of doing so in complex discussions, unless the sentence is as long as a paragraph and syntactically should be broken into several sentences.
Pikkumatti,
If the only value of our life (and consequence of our death) is to that of our immediate family, then our lives and deaths are exactly meaningless -- because our immediate family will also all eventually die. After about 50 years, our impact on this world is pretty minimal indeed -- no more than random luck.
I ask you, most respectfully, to list all the people in human history who've had the impact you describe, beyond the third generation or so. Then, do a rough count of the total number of humans who've lived during that timeframe. You'll find an almost vanishingly small proportion of all humans who have any sort of impact on the lives of people beyond their immediate community.
Given that, I reject your use of "meaningless" as a rebuttal to my "rarely of any consequence outside that person's immediate family." Don't get me wrong, I'm not insulted or upset by your usage, I'm just rejecting it as false. You will never convince me that my mother's life, crammed with about 120 years worth of living in just 63 years, was meaningless. She raised five children who all turned out pretty well, the younger three by herself. She influenced hundreds of lives with her involvement in local schools and politics. There are thousands of people whose lives have been indirectly touched by her wisdom and activism, and not one of them are aware of her let alone know her name. It is enough, for me at least, that it took 45 minutes at her memorial gathering to accomodate all those who wanted to just say that she touched their lives in some significant fashion.
In short, I suggest that your standards of measurement for "meaning" are completely unconnected to reality.
I apologize if this comes across as my being annoyed (or worse). I believe you deserve a direct answer to your challenge.
The night Christ was arrested St. Peter denied Christ 3 times, and the rest of the Apostles fled and they were direct witnesses to his ministry! I fail to see how one can predict how they would or would not act in these circumstances. Would most of us perform differently than the Apostles?
I agree these men do not deserve the accolades of heroes, but I find hypotheticals like this an exercise in futility.
Just my opinion.
I don't know the circumstances under which the journalists "converted" or were forced to convert, or if they knew that saying "yes" meant life and freedom (rather than just life), versus saying "no" meant death (or worse). But if I knew that saying "yes" meant life and freedom to return to the U.S., I would say "yes" in a heartbeat (with a feigned sense of struggling with my conscious, to make my "conversion" appear more authentic), even though some would think I had thus renounced Christ. My wife would know the truth.
Were this a political act - i.e., an arrest by the State because I was a Christian and had to choose Christ or death - that would be different; I'd join the martyrs. But this was a threat from idiot fanatics that was not an issue of "standing up for Christ." As David feigned insanity to save his hide (I Samuel 21:10-15), I would do the same - because becoming Muslim IS insanity.
It's easy for Warren to be an armchair theologian and philosopher - he even invokes "men without chests" from C. S. Lewis's THE ABOLITION OF MAN (unless it wasn't original with Lewis) to add some gravitas to his somber view of this event. There is more than one way to defeat Islam. Dying at the hands of idiots is not one of them, but escaping and returning to the fight is.
My 2 cents. Dirka dirka dirka.
Franklin, easy.
By "without meaning", I meant without inherent meaning. Meaning in the sense that it is objectively good that you are alive, and that I am alive. That there is a purpose to our lives, beyond our mere functionality. A purpose to the things that we do out in the forest without anyone looking. A purpose to our life, even if we are in a state in which we are unable to communicate with anyone. A meaning that comes from simply being human.
Meaning that comes not only from the good things that we do, but also the meaning that comes from the question of why good people suffer.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Pikkumatti, I am not upset, but thanks for the calming effort. I just wanted to be sure my phrasing was not taken as angry, something that is often confusedly assumed when I'm just being blunt.
I must return, though, to your implied value judgment. Objective meaning is still subject to the perceptions and perspectives of others, even if they believe they are applying their standards "from on high".
Perhaps another angle would be fruitful. If the Fox journalists had died, in a manner similar to the Italian guy, there would have been two transient results: their families would go into mourning, and some Christians would applaud them and perhaps nominate them for sainthood. Who, do you think, has more claim to the meaning of their deaths at that point, their families, or society-at-large?
My argument is that no matter how a person dies, meaning is what comes out of the life that is lived. Meaning can take on connotations depending on the manner of death, certainly, but the connotations do not change the life that was lived, hence my using my mother as an example: she died while being treated for leukemia; the cause of death was heart failure during a biopsy procedure. How silly is that in the larger import of cancer and its treatment? Can anyone not in her immediate family and circle of friends understand the sense of loss and waste we felt, the direct loss to my children, aged 4 and 1 and not yet born, who only get to know her in stories?
And yet, no one, not me or anyone else in my family, can possibly assign meaning to her death beyond that immediate reach, because there is none. The meaning of life is how we define it by how we live, not with our deaths.
No person or religion or philosophy was or is capable of explaining why my mother suffered. Her treatment killed her in small increments. I watched it happening. It is my human obligation to deal with it, and find meaning in her life; it was a rich one, and worthy of anyone's inspection.
I can't work up much interest in judging the Fox reporters for not accepting martyrdom, especially because I have no idea if they even hold a Christian understanding of martyrdom. As I've said, in the fear and confusion of that situation, I might weaken, just as St. Peter did, and submit. But I would hope that I, as St. Peter did, would have the integrity of character to weep over my failure, to publicly renounce what I had done under duress, and to make whatever restitution I could.
That was a very awkward reference to my children, which should have indicated their ages at the time my mother died. That was 1987. My children are now 23, 19 and 13.
Need more coffee!!
Rod, your latest post is the most coherent expression in the matter at hand so far. Thanks for chiming in.
The news of the Fox journalists forced “conversion” made a deep impact on me also. My initial reaction was that of Rod’s and others, thank God I have never been put to this test. The next question of course is to consider what would you do if you were faced with this horrible dilemma.
First, it seems to me that the debate carried on above is mostly between those who view this as an actual dilemma and those who can’t understand why this should even be debatable in the first instance. For some faith is purely a subjective abstraction that is hardly worth any form of serious sacrifice, much less martyrdom. As the pagan commentator above states, “the death of one person, Christian or otherwise, is rarely of any consequence outside that person's immediate family”. If this is so then the very concept of culture and civilization is void of any meaning as we are all just unconnected individuals. For others, life itself is a gift from God and filled with purpose, that chiefly being, to be drawn closer to Him and true peace by the denial of self. I don’t find it of much interest to debate or discuss this topic among the nihilists, and assorted others, of the first camp. It is noteworthy though, that it is not surprising that in general, those who find martyrdom for Christ to be an absurdity are the same folks who reject the very concept of any absolute truths and subscribe to some version of post modern relativism. For them, as faith is purely subjective it is obscene to give up that which is the only thing that really matters, an individual’s life.
I find in much more illuminating to focus on the balance of those who know in their hearts that if put to the test they would hope that they would not deny Christ. I consider myself in this group yet I know that my fear for my wife and children and their future without me would be a tremendous weight on me that very well could lead to my denial of Him. This is all the more so when I consider all the “little” ways I deny Him every day. The witness of the martyrs is deeply humbling and shaming when one truly tries to put one’s self in the shoes of these journalists. Surely those men and women who refused to deny Him through the centuries also often had families they left behind. Ultimately then, the question of Christ is put to us all, “Who do you say that I am?” Even Peter, who proclaimed Him in response as the Messiah and boldly stated that he would never deny Him, did so three times. Yet as stated by others above, he then, “wept bitterly”.
When considering those who were asked to make this ultimate sacrifice, I realize that all who claim to be followers of Him are also asked the same in often very different and less dramatic ways. How we as Christians respond to this call is what defines our lives. For the others I would ask, if you can not conceive of anything worth dying for then by what standard can you measure the value of life?
Ledihn, it is a huge assumptive jump from not understanding the Christian-martyr mindset to believing that there is nothing worth dying for. I suggest you ask rather than assume. Some might be offended by your assertion.
Just a thought. My responses to pikkumatti and elmo might be of interest to you as well.
Franklin, I am sorry for the loss of your mother. I lost my mother to cancer when I was 13. Her death, and the question of whether suffering has meaning, or can have meaning, has been a large force in my search for Truth all these years since. And the more I look and search, the more my faith makes sense.
(I really have more to say on this topic, but this public forum is just not the place.)
Your question of who would have more claim to the meaning of their deaths . . . their families, or society-at-large? is not a useful question. For example, the story of the death of the Italian victim has meaning to each of us -- the meaning that yes, there is something larger than us and it is worth dying for. We know this because we recognize his death as heroic. Whether we have "more claim" is not relevant.
What is odd about this little debate is that there are participants, presumably Christian - at least some of them - apparently arguing as though Christ did not really say that those who denied Him before men He would deny before His Father in heaven.
If this is the manner in which many Christians are already responding to the call to Islam and the prospect of forced conversions, we should all just hang it up, because it's already over but for the waiting, like a football game blown out 52-0 by halftime.
I guess the part I'm missing is the existential requirement that what we say necessarily is exactly and precisely what is in our hearts, and that circumstances do not matter.
I suppose that's why it's so easy to get a person riled up by insulting his sister. In the grand scheme of things, that is more important to God than living one's life from the inside out.
Pikkumatti, you're right. Some things are not appropriate for public discourse. I'm sorry I pushed it so far.
"What is odd about this little debate is that there are participants, presumably Christian - at least some of them - apparently arguing as though Christ did not really say that those who denied Him before men He would deny before His Father in heaven."
There's denying Him, and there's denying Him. Even Islam recognizes Jesus as a Prophet, so a feigned conversion to Islam for idiot fanatics is not the same as an overt denial of Christ. By some persons' definitions, refusing to assent to the Nicene Creed is a denial of Christ; are United Pentecostals thus in a continual state of denying Christ? There's refusing to deny Christ for the sake of being a witness to Christ and the Gospel, and then there's playing the idiots who want you to convert to Islam for fools and going along with their game to rightfully save your life and mock them afterwards.
Okay, that's my 3 cents.
Again, let's consider the topic of martyrdom as it relates to VOWS.
(Are there Christians of any sizable tradition that do not make vows/promises of some sort to be faithful?)
I'm assuming that most adult Christians have publicly promised to be faithful, whether as people who took "believer's Baptism" sometime in adolescence or later, or upon whose behalf vows were made when they were baptized as infants, followed by them making Confirmation vows in their own voices later on.
When making such vows, people promise, with the help of God,that they will remain faithful.
I further assume that most people who marry, make vows of faithfulness to one another.
Now let's imagine a very unlikely scenario. Suppose that a husband or wife is kidnapped. He/she is taken somewhere and told, "If you will not have sexual intercourse with this person other than your wife/husband, you will be killed."
I'm assuming that many Christians would decide to submit to being killed, rather than to break their marital vows, even thought they might well believe that their spouses, if they were there, would urge them to do so, and would forgive them if they made the decision to do the sex in their absence. I think those who would submit to death are right to do so.
And you?
For the others I would ask, if you can not conceive of anything worth dying for then by what standard can you measure the value of life?
How can you assume that people "cannot conceive of anything worth dying for" just because they don't understand why it would have been better for these journalists to die than to mouth a sham conversion to Islam? I can conceive of many things worth dying for; this just isn't one of them.
I'm the one who said that I find "dying for Christianity" a strange concept, and I think I need to clarify that statement.
Dying to defend or preserve other people's lives or freedom is noble. Dying to defend or preserve people's right to be Christian and to worship as Christians is noble. Heck, dying to ensure the delivery of a box of Bibles to a remote mission is noble. But dying as part of a disgusting piece of melodrama, carried out by violent fanatics, to me is taking part in that melodrama. It's legitimizing the farce.
Maybe the true martyrdom is to suffer the humiliation of being publicly terrified and controlled by these people and still choose peace (because the other choice leads to violent death, even if it's carried out by others).
HB
We're all going to die, people. The martyr's choice isn't whether he's going to live or die, the choice is only if he's going to live or die right now. Such being the case, it seems best to me to die as a witness. (He writes as he sits in a comfortable chair, having just heated up his coffee.) I don't know what I'd do at the point of a gun. May I not be put to that test. I hope and pray, though, that I'd be faithful at the end.
"Dying to defend or preserve other people's lives or freedom is noble. Dying to defend or preserve people's right to be Christian and to worship as Christians is noble. Heck, dying to ensure the delivery of a box of Bibles to a remote mission is noble. But dying as part of a disgusting piece of melodrama, carried out by violent fanatics, to me is taking part in that melodrama. It's legitimizing the farce."
Agreed.
"Maybe the true martyrdom is to suffer the humiliation of being publicly terrified and controlled by these people and still choose peace (because the other choice leads to violent death, even if it's carried out by others)."
Similar to what Pope Benedict went through when he was in the Nazi youth.
There's denying Him, and there's denying Him. Even Islam recognizes Jesus as a Prophet, so a feigned conversion to Islam for idiot fanatics is not the same as an overt denial of Christ. By some persons' definitions, refusing to assent to the Nicene Creed is a denial of Christ; are United Pentecostals thus in a continual state of denying Christ? There's refusing to deny Christ for the sake of being a witness to Christ and the Gospel, and then there's playing the idiots who want you to convert to Islam for fools and going along with their game to rightfully save your life and mock them afterwards.
Yes, and there's also integrity and faith, and the cheap, nihilistic, cynical conviction that every moral act can be parsed sufficiently so as to deprive it of its obvious import, because nothing of that sort really matters anyway - we should just scoff at the fools who believe that it does matter.
There is a difference between recognizing Christ as a mere mortal prophet and recognizing Him as the incarnate Word, the Son of God, and confessing Him as such. The notion that, confronted by the choice between conversion to Islam and martyrdom as a Christian, one should instead posit a tertium quid of dissimulation and mockery elides this distinction, trivializes faith, posits cynical mockery as a higher value than faith, and dishonours the memories of all the Christian martyrs who manifestly did not say within themselves, "What, after all, is the Emperor, that we should worry about offering him our pinch of incense and confessing him as god? Let us do it, be done with it, and laugh at the fools who believe such things afterwards."
People who have trouble with the idea of martyrdom really have a problem with Christ and His obvious teaching, and should be manful enough to own up to it.
The Pope at age 14 was required to sign up for service in the "Hitler Youth", did so, but refused to participate or attend any meetings in violation of the law which put him at risk for imprisonment or death. He then got out of it to study for the priesthood.
More germane to the topic however, he was actually was conscripted into service again at 16, and then deserted his unit when the chance allowed, with full knowledge that if he was caught he would be shot. Fortunately, the advancing allies got to him first and he was a "P.O.W." for the rest of the war.
I think those who would submit to death are right to do so.
And you?
Anonymously posted, please read the rest of that post for context.
In the case of suffering humiliation as the alternative to death, I would choose humiliation. The balance is very simple, for me.
Humiliated, I can recover, and I can seek justice (or vengence, depending on circumstances). Dead, I can pay off our mortgage.
The concept I'd like to submit is the interface between and overlap of the mind/soul and the body. It is very simple: you can make me do just about anything under threat of torture or death, making me a physical slave, but only my choice can make me a slave in truth. If I stand firm in my mind, if my soul is inviolate, then nothing that happens to my body, including death, has an relevance.
I respectfully ask my Christian colleagues here to think about the gift of free will, and to ask yourselves: did your God give you this gift so you could throw it away in order to be with Him, or have you been challenged to live the best life you can while remaining true to your faith?
If your answer is to be ready to die for your faith, then I must step aside in respect. My understanding is of no relevance to your belief. If, however, you seek to see this from my POV, then consider that God values your personal integrity above all else, and no amount of words or actions under duress is going to change that integrity one whit. Free will means making choices with the full knowledge of all the consequences and ramifications.
If a man rejected his wife because she surrendered to unwanted sex in order to save her life and return to him, he has rejected her personal integrity, and demonstrated that he has none. That's my opinion, come what may.
My God, what a load of crap. Maybe Mr. Warren has no family, no one who cares for him, etc., so no one would be directly affected by his imagined act of orthodox/fundamentalist Christian machisimo.
As for me, I have people who need me and they come ahead of passing some kind of ultra-right religious litmus test of the likes of Warren. To parrot whatever hollow words the guys with the guns want you to say just to make them happy does NOT mean "our whole civilization stands or falls on what you decide." On the contrary, it shows their religion is morally bankrupt.
Warren and perhaps also CC also ignore the possibility that my (and others') Christian beliefs may be different from theirs (EGAD!) and what might be an act of cowardice to them would not be for me.
And to those who bitterly take the extremist view that Americans in this situation are honor bound to 'take one for the team' - I have two things to say:
(1) If you feel that strongly about this, turn off your PC and enlist IMMEDIATELY with a request to be shipped directly to Iraq.
(2) If I were one of the Fox journalists being vilified as a coward by Warren et al, to those "macho Christians" I think I'd utilize a certain vulgar 3-word sentence made famous by their beloved Dick Cheney...perhaps with a friendly invitation to discuss their opinion of me as a coward privately outside. Methinks they'd be in for a wee bit of a surprise.
"People who have trouble with the idea of martyrdom really have a problem with Christ and His obvious teaching, and should be manful enough to own up to it.
Maximos | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 1:47 pm | #"
Okay, I'll ask you to live up to Christ's obvious teaching in Matthew 5:42, and give all that you own, both now and in the future - including your computer(s) that you are using to post here and to your blog/homepage, etc. - to the first person among Crunchy Con's commenters/posters to ask for it.
Was St. Stephen (cf. Acts 6:8-7:60) a macho narcissistic idiot who just didn't realize all he had to say was "sorry, guys"? Answer: No.
How grotesque, this passing of judgement, this pining for others' martyrdom.
It's revolting, the deep need a few of you seem to have to validate your own faith by the death of people you neither know, nor whose motives you can possibly understand. Instead, you hold these two people up to More's or Christ's examples of the way it should be done if the West is to survive. Such vainglory.
Their deaths may have served your facile needs or they might have made the political point you wanted made, but they would have just been two more forgotten victims of this perfectly human lunacy some of you seem to support in the name of God.
Eric,
Thanks much for the cheap ad hominem: confronted by the manifest fact that the Church has never, ever interpreted the words of Christ I quoted to permit dissimulation, but has, in fact, taken them quite literally, you resort to the assertion that I need not be taken seriously unless I should happen to observe a construction of another teaching of Christ that the Church never has pressed in the manner you are pressing it, ie., that I should surrender my worldly goods to strangers and acquaintances without regard to my duty to support my family.
Again, your issue is apparently with Christ, not me.
Even the God of Abraham did not insist on the shedding of Isaac's blood when he and his father reached the altar for the sacrifice.
Which brings up whether the call to martyrdom would still resonate even if it is one's son or daughter who finds themselves in this scenario?
Never mind the hypothetical husband or wife, rather your children.
Tracking some of the thoughts expressed contra-martyrdom I notice they are either materialist ("What about my family?"), rationalistic ("But you'd be *dead*! What would it matter?") or utilitarian ("What purpose would it serve anyway?").
If you're a non-Christian material-rationalist-utilitarian I can understand why this all seems absurd. But for Christians--by definition we are *not* materialistic, rationalistic, or utilitarian--for us this is not a discussion.
REVISION:
The parenthetical in the second line is more clearly read as ("Who will provide for my family?")
Maximos:
I will ponder your comments. I am at present not convinced that the martyrdom scenarios are the same, but I'm open to changing my mind.
So, what is your real name, and who are you?
So, Lucas, do you feel that you can actually understand the impetus, convictions and motives of, say, a Palestinian or some other ethnicity who professes this same devotion to their God?
Lucas: if Christians really were not materialistic, rationalistic, or utilitarian, then [on the lighter side of this point] websites like landoverbaptist.org would neither be funny nor exist.
And, on the darker side of this point, there would be no global scandal of scores of Catholic pedophile priests committing repeated, aggravated child rape to this day.
I think I just realized why we are in serious danger of losing this war. We can't even agree that it is noble to be willing to die for one's convictions. David J. White
Or, in the case of Mr. White, let someone else die for them.
I dare say that most, if not all, of those who proudly profess that they would choose a noble death, have not been tested beyond whether or not to skip church in order to sttend a Star Wars convention.
tovart,
Someone decided that a good tactice both militarily and proganda-wise, would be to convince young men and women to die in order to kill or injure a large number of the enemy.
All they needed was a way to convince. Religion is a powerful tool in the hands of those willing to manipulate it to their ends.
None of those suicide bombers are dying for Allah. They may think they are, but they are not.
I tried to post this earlier-sorry if this is a repeat:
Mr. Warren is looking at this issue of martyrdom and his perception of cowardice through the profoundly distorted lens of extremist orthodox/fundamentalist Christianity. He is apparently unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there are Christian beliefs besides his own black-and-white version of choice that would not regard anyone religiously bound to choose death over repeating whatever hollow words the nutbags with guns want.
Consider Mr. Warren's "update" to his 2nd article:
I didn't condemn the two Fox News journalists for simple cowardice. I condemned them because they didn't think twice; because they took capitulation for granted. I condemned them because they showed no regret for having committed apostasy & treason, regardless of how they were pushed to it. Because they sold out the West without a second thought, & continue to sell us out now that they are free. That is what I found so starchless.
I rest my case that Warren is looking at this issue through the very distorted lens of extremist religion and what being a Christian is all about.
"Apostasy & treason" ...good God. "Treason"...so I suppose a firing line is in order for these guys after all?! And BTW, I cheerfully admit I looked up Warren's $100 word "apostasy" - it means "to abandon one's religion, political party or cause." I suggest Warren's ilk is having more and more trouble differentiating between one's religion and one's political party.
And I suggest the word "starchless" was carefully chosen, rather than synonyms like "gutless", "impotent" or "emasculated" - to not call attention to the latent wannabe machisimo in Warren's illogic.
Clearly, I do not qualify as a True Christian in Mr. Warren's eyes (or probably CC's either). It will neither surprise them that I do not regard them and their vainglory (as aptly identified by another post) as particularly Christian either.
Non sequitur of the day:
"And, on the darker side of this point, there would be no global scandal of scores of Catholic pedophile priests committing repeated, aggravated child rape to this day."
Exactly, what matters is what they believe they are doing.
I am sorry you found that comment humorous, Ledihn. An earlier poster remarked that "As Christians, by definition we are *not* materialistic, rationalistic, or utilitarian."
The global child rape scandal engulfing the Catholic church, including the horrendous response by Catholic hierarchy, is an obvious example which goes a very long way to debunking the above feel-good statement.
Again, I am very sorry for you that you found this to be somehow funny.
Sad.
Thomas,
To save you the trouble of another dictionary search, a non sequitur is not a "funny" remark but one that is absurdly off topic and does not follow. Your eagerness to defame priests as child rapists en masse (you can look that one up yourself) is a gross slander that has no relation to today’s discussion and therefore qualifies.
This fine and thourough debunking of Mr. Warren's absurd articles, far better than anything I could write.
http://news.bostonherald.com/
edi...rticleid=155608
Highlights:
Now, a sanctimonious Canadian, columnist David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen, has accused Centanni and Wiig of aiding the enemy through "conventional cowardice."This disgusting slur was amplified at www.realclearpolitics.com, a prominent and respected opinion website that saw fit to run these remarks under its own imprint...
...Fabrizio Quatrocchi, cited by Warren in his ridiculous column, is an Italian whose story I also remember. Quatrocchi was a inspiration to us all, when he told his al Qaeda captors, "I’ll show you how an Italian dies!" and tried to rip off his blindfold before they shot him in the head. How many of us could do that?
I’m guessing most of us would do whatever they asked for the chance to keep drawing breath. So I have a suggestion to Warren and anyone else who has a problem with what Centanni and Wiig did.
Offer yourself up. Sgt. Keith Maupin has been missing for two years. Israel wants three of itssoldiers back. In exchange for you, maybe Al Qaeda will tell Maupin’s parents what they did with him. Maybe Hamas and Hezbollah will produce the Israelis. Maybe not, it doesn’t matter. Because this really isn’t about any innocent’s life or death. It’s about your big chance at martyrdom. So put up, or shut up. Unless you are just another conventional coward.
Nuff said. Too much time and bits and bytes have been wasted on this piece of work David Warren.
Hi Ledihn. I am perfectly happy to confirm you are correct -- I looked up "non sequitor."
You are still sadly mistaken if you think the response to the Catholic church child rape scandal, and specifically the church's terrible response to it, has nothing to do with the smug pronoucement made by someone else that Christians are "by definition" not materialistic, rationalistic, or utilitarian. The Catholic church hierarchy certainly has most certainly and repeatedly acted materialistic, rationalistic, and utilitarian in "dealing" with the crisis.
And you are tilting at windmills when you imagined that I suggested that 'all' priests are child rapists.
All this of course is just a sidebar to the main point of disproving the absurd Christian martyrdom articles referred to by Crunchy Con.
But, hey, thanks for the definition of "non sequitor." And you'll have to take my word for it that I already knew what "en masse" meant.
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. -- William Shakespeare
Or, in the case of Mr. White, let someone else die for them.
Ouch.
I dare say that most, if not all, of those who proudly profess that they would choose a noble death, have not been tested beyond whether or not to skip church in order to sttend a Star Wars convention.
Probably not. Any many people who claim that they would, might not if put in that position. But it's still depressing that so many people seem willing to throw in the towel from the get-go and say that they *wouldn't* be willing to die for their convictions.
I mean, not everyone preserves fidelity in marriage. But we still try to uphold it as an ideal, and couples getting married still promise it. What would a bride think if her groom said, "I don't think I can be faithful to you, so I'm not going to promise you that"?
Maximos:
I will ponder your comments. I am at present not convinced that the martyrdom scenarios are the same, but I'm open to changing my mind.
So, what is your real name, and who are you?
Eric Weiss | 09.06.06 - 3:44 pm | #
Maximos? Are you there? Are you a real person? Should I take your comments seriously? And if so, why should I take them seriously if you won't tell us who you are?
But it's still depressing that so many people seem willing to throw in the towel from the get-go and say that they *wouldn't* be willing to die for their convictions.
Here's one place there's a disconnect. Speaking for myself, it's not that I'm not willing to die for my convictions (though I'd sure hate to be put in the position to be tested); it's that I don't see this scenario (the Fox newsmen episode) as a genuine challenge to Christian convictions.
But many obviously see it differently, and I respect that.
HB
David J. White: "I mean, not everyone preserves fidelity in marriage. But we still try to uphold it as an ideal, and couples getting married still promise it. What would a bride think if her groom said, "I don't think I can be faithful to you, so I'm not going to promise you that"?"
Let's put it this way: my wife and I expect each will be faithful to the other, but I certainly don't expect her to die to prove the point. Nor would I want her to; I am more concerned with what is in her heart.
BTW, people are speaking as if martyrdom was only a Christian phenomenon. It's not. See 2 Maccabees.
I wrote, above:
- - -
Now let's imagine a very unlikely scenario. Suppose that a husband or wife is kidnapped. He/she is taken somewhere and told, "If you will not have sexual intercourse with this person other than your wife/husband, you will be killed."
I'm assuming that many Christians would decide to submit to being killed, rather than to break their marital vows, even thought they might well believe that their spouses, if they were there, would urge them to do so, and would forgive them if they made the decision to do the sex in their absence. I think those who would submit to death are right to do so.
- - -
Shall we take it, then, that those who have been advocating the choice against martyrdom in the original context (embrace Islam or die) would also choose for this breaking of their vows, in this case their vows to their spouses? If not, why not?
I'd ask those foklks what kind of vows they think would be appropriate for Confirmation or for marriage. "I promise to be faithful as long as... " Or would you prefer "If I am outwardly unfaithful to you, I trust you to understand"?
Or just bag the whole idea of vows?
Maximos:
I will ponder your comments. I am at present not convinced that the martyrdom scenarios are the same, but I'm open to changing my mind.
So, what is your real name, and who are you?
Eric Weiss | 09.06.06 - 3:44 pm | #
Maximos? Are you there? Are you a real person? Should I take your comments seriously? And if so, why should I take them seriously if you won't tell us who you are?
Are you perhaps as I suspect - i.e., a drive-by poster, willing to take shots at the Fox correspondents and to chastise persons here who don't agree with you re: confessing Christ - yet refusing here or on your blog to "confess" who you are?
Eric, give it up, man. It's bad form to insist on a level of disclosure that a person obviously is not willing to give up front.
Respect for privacy. Just because you and I are willing to use our actual names here, doesn't somehow give us some sort of moral superiority.
Do the next thing, eh?
Okay. I respect you.
The Jewish point of view is that one may do anything to save one's own life except murder, idolatry, and adultery. The Jewish point of view is also that Islam is not idolatry. (There are differences of opinion about Christianity, but we're clear about Islam.) Does that mean it would be okay to convert to Islam? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what I would do in that situation.
To judge from the non-response, it looks like the issue of vows is not much of an issue for some folks posting here. (Maybe it's just that my comments on vows could have been written better?)
Oh well! I'd hoped for a sharing of views.
Ledihn,
My comment about the non-materialist, rationalist, and utilitarian nature of Christianity (which you mistakenly understood as smug) is perfectly reasonable.
Since we're talking fallacies, I'd like to point out that yours was "hasty generalization;" that is: "Because some claiming to be Christians commit perverse sexual sins (above asserted by you to be indicative of being materialist, rationalist, and utilitarian) Christianity is these three."
The problem here is that the acts you mentioned are condemned by Christianity, therefore it holds that since you define the sexual assaults as indicative of those three philosophies, and because Christianity condemns them, within your example Christianity is free of materialist, rationalist, and utilitarian philosophy.
Eric,
Get a grip. My personal identity is irrelevant to the truth-value of what I write. I tend to be a bit reticent since I once had a libertarian go ballistic after a heated debate, use my email address to ferret out my personal information, including my place of residence, and publish all of the information online. I tend not to trust those who ask for my identity as a debating tactic; it's not personal at all - I just don't know you from Adam.
And no, I'm not a drive-by poster; I've been reading Rod's blog since it began and have commented on occasion. I have a long record at Redstate, post at the collaborative blog linked below, and have my own blog.
One more time, about vows.
1.I don’t have a comment on the media guys who embraced Islam. I don’t know if they were Christians.
2.I recognize that there are some churches in which people are not asked to make vows before Confirmation or (in the case of “believers’ baptism”) before being baptized. However, in my own tradition, people do make vows.
3.I recognize that some people might not make vows to their spouses when they marry, but many people do.
4.Such vows (#2, 3 above) are, in theory, made because of the perceived great worth of the one to whom the vows are made (God, one’s spouse). Of course, many people make Confirmation vows with no real intention of keeping them, and the same holds for the marital vows of many.
5.For your consideration: in the old Epiphany Journal (Summer 1985), there is an article by Richard Wurmbrand (founder of the Voice of the Martyrs organization). Pastor Wurmbrand was the author, of course, of Tortured for Christ, etc. In his article, Wurmbrand says:
“I remember my last Confirmation class before left Romania. I took a group of ten to fifteen boys and girls on a Sunday morning, not to church, but to the zoo. Before the cage of lions, I told them, ‘Your forefathers in the faith were thrown before such wild beasts for their faith. Know that you also will have to suffer [from the Communist authorities]. You will not be thrown before lions, but you will have to do with men who would be much worse than lions. Decide here and now if you wish to pledge allegiance to Christ.’ They had tears in their eyes when they said , ‘Yes.’”
6.Some posters of comments ought to be disgusted by the anecdote just given. Child abuse! Others will find it inspiring. I will admit that those who regard Christian martyrdom as a “macho” act seem to me to be people who might respond favorably to Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor - - remember him? He has so tender a regard for the weakness of the mass of Christians, and yearned to give them a soft, edgeless religion suited to their condition...
7.Non-Christian posters to this list - - you’re not expected to accept this: but some Christians have hope in the Lord, that, should they face the choice of martyrdom or apostasy, there will be One with and in them who will strengthen them to keep their vows.
Hebrews 11:37-38: “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword… [note well: "were slain with the sword"; isn’t that the favored tool of the "sons of the Prophet”?]; OF WHOM THE WORLD WAS NOT WORTHY.”
Very interesting exercise in mass psychology for sure.
Okay, Maximos. I understand and apologize. Thanks for explaining. Yes, I know you have your own blog (on which you hide your profile/identity, it seems, hence my comments).
For some reason I let this topic or discussion get the better or me (or maybe I should say the worse of me) and got a bit defensive - and then offensive. Please forgive me for my rudeness (I don't mean that flippantly).
Lucas,
FWIW, I believe your issue is with our semi-literate friend, Thomas.
Some vows cannot be kept, and should not be made. Some of us "non-Christians" may not understand the martyrdom/apostasy dilemma, but we do understand vows.
Ledihn,
Sorry!! You're absolutely right. A thousand apologies.
Thomas,
My comment about the non-materialist, rationalist, and utilitarian nature of Christianity (which you mistakenly understood as smug) is perfectly reasonable.
Since we're talking fallacies, I'd like to point out that yours was "hasty generalization;" that is: "Because some claiming to be Christians commit perverse sexual sins (above asserted by you to be indicative of being materialist, rationalist, and utilitarian) Christianity is these three."
The problem here is that the acts you mentioned are condemned by Christianity, therefore it holds that since you define the sexual assaults as indicative of those three philosophies, and because Christianity condemns them, within your example Christianity is free of materialist, rationalist, and utilitarian philosophy.
But were those acts committed in contravention of previous "vows?"
You can describe the philosophy any way you like, but the bald facts are clear.
Anointed leaders of the religious hierarchy consciously protected criminals from prosecution and abetted their criminal activity before the fact in proven cases.
You can decide in hindsight all you like that these criminals were not "true Christians", but the religious hierarchy not only disagrees with you, it acted to hide their crimes from the very members of the faith who depended on their honesty and integrity.
Lutheran Reader: Quick question: Are you LCMS?
Lucas and Leidhn: OK, now we have two people tilting at windmills. Perhaps we can agree that not only "some claiming to be Christians commit perverse sexual sins" -- but also that some claiming to be Christians who still serve within the Catholic church have [1] actively concealed said individuals who have commited perverse sexual sins, and [2] have at times also verbally denigrated their victims.
I didn't know Catholics still existed who deny these facts.
And I'm still looking for evidence of Leidhn's faith in his self-gratifying name calling...nope, not seeing it...
That is all.
Franklin Evans: Thanks for your post, an appeal to common sense and common decency which I am finding in short supply here.
BWDIK? I'm semi-literate, Leidhn says so
Franklin,
It does not follow that because a group of Roman hierarchs participated in--or protected others in--these horrible acts that all of Christianity is therefore suspect; it means *those hierarchs* are.
You're a jackass.
Lucas: Wowwwwww.
Lucas, I agree with your point and I regret leaving that ambiguity in my post.
There is a systemic failure in the RC hierarchy. It is too widespread for any simplistic answer like "they aren't true Christians (or Catholics)". I have a two-part vested interest in the Catholic church: I grew up on a parish border surrounded by Irish and Italian Catholic families, almost the only non-Christian kid in evidence (save for a Jewish kid a couple blocks over); and I'm currently a social activist and a Pagan in one of the most densely Catholic regions in the US. I have a definite love-hate thing going here, but I never lose sight of the profound respect my archdiocese has earned and deserves. There's more to that story, but not topical here.
I want them to step forward and be accountable. That it is taking lawsuits to prompt them to do so pains me more than I can describe.
Franklin,
Thanks for your elaboration: I hope that my posts haven't implied a lack of accountability on the part of the clergy/hierarchs involved. Thanks for the civil, intelligent discussion.
Thomas, I'm not LCMS, although I might be if there was an LCMS church in my town. (My current church arrangements are a leetle complicated and I won't go into that!) I revere Chemnitz, Sasse, Koberle, Stahlin... that might indicate the wavelength.
Lucas, thank you for meeting me halfway. I did not mean to criticize your posts even by implication, so be reassured. I'm very pleased to share this space with you.
This discussion is petering out, I think. Perhaps in some other context we can have a discussion about vows/promises someday. As I leave this one, I'll say that it seems to me the difference between those who regard the making and the keeping of vows/promises/pledges as pretty basic for civilization, and those who would regard it as a peripheral or quaint kind of thing, is probably one of the distinctions between a Traditional and a Modern culture.
I once amused myself by working up, as a discussion tool (please, that is all it is!! so of course it is oversimplified), pairings of contrasted Traditional vs. Modern things.
By "Traditional" I mean things that most pre-modern, and orthodox religious, people would affirm, and by "Modern" I mean things that are characteristic of our secular institutions (e.g. the unspoken curricula of schools) and also mainline churches. Black Elk, Lao Tzu, Dante, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would be Traditional.
Something like this:
vocation/career
polysemousness/reductionism (X is nothing but Y)
reverence/"free inquiry"
creation or emanation/naturalistic evolution
levels of being/materialism
An unfallen state or Golden Age/progress to a one-world utopia
revelation/fresh supply of questions for us to solve by increasingly sophisticated machines
and so on. I think I could add
sacredness of vows/provisionality of all assertions which are, however, entitled to respect
Of course, there are enormous differences in some beliefs held by people who are "Traditional."
it's really not about "dying for Christ," so much as it's about not letting a little thing like death make someone lie about who he is or what's real. Or, more accurately, it's that death clarifies and reveals the essential reality at the base of who we are.
It's no benefit to Christ that people die, whether for Him or for Western civilization. The Christian martyr is not the master of his own death -- which is exactly the point.
The "witness" of the martyr is not that death is nothing, but that it's the final spotlight on who we are and what we care about. It's the Misfit saying, "She could have been a good woman if she had someone to kill her every minute" (quoted from memory, so not guaranteed for accuracy). It's St. Polycarp replying to the same offer the reporters had: "I have served Christ for six and eighty years, and never has he done me evil. How, then, can I blaspheme my King and Savior?"
Obviously, reporters Centanni and Wiig have not served Christ for 86 years (even together, they probably haven't lived that long), and when the bright light shone on their values, they revealed what they believed. They seem satisfied with what they found.
Like Dreher, Warren, Mattingly and Grace, I would be horrified and humiliated to discover that my reality was so small. I would come back, not bragging about it, but repenting of its paucity and working to enlarge it.
In all this thread, I've not yet seen one explicit answer to a very simple question.
Why is it a lie to renounce Jesus (or anything at all) with the barrel of a gun pointed at one's head?
Please, explain it to me in simple words, without multiple citations of and allusions to the great minds of Christendom. I've read a bit of Augustine, Lewis and others. The answer I seek is expressed with both feet planted on the ground, looking me square in the eyes.
If anyone can do that, please post it here.
Wow, that was a poorly constructed question, wazzunit?
What I want to know is why it is a betrayal of (fill-in-the-blank, God, Jesus, etc) to renounce (fill-in-the-blank, God, Jesus, etc) with the barrel of a gun pointed at one's head.
Sorry, my head was not all present before. It's almost all here now.
Franklin asks: "What I want to know is why it is a betrayal of (fill-in-the-blank, God, Jesus, etc) to renounce (fill-in-the-blank, God, Jesus, etc) with the barrel of a gun pointed at one's head."
It's not so much a betrayal of Jesus as a betrayal -- a revelation, an unveiling, a dis-covery -- of what the person really believes about life. If this life is all there is, then of course, someone will preserve it at all costs. If someone believes that there's a world bigger, realer, more substantial that this one, that there is a God who Is, then he won't allow some pathetic loser with a gun (sword, lions, etc.) force him to lie about it.
Jan, thank you for two lucid, thought-provoking postings. I hope your circumstances are such that you are able to help people think ethically like this.
Thanks for trying, Jan. You either said too much or not enough... but I often find myself in that situation, so I hope your patience extends to a "but what about..?" reply from me.
If I'm getting your point, and there's no guarantee that I am, then no Christian under any circumstances will "renounce" hir faith, no matter what the consequences. I could run up a string of outlandish things, like lining up your entire family, or your town, and shooting themm one by one until you renounce, and refusing to say the words is the right thing because this life is of no import to God.
For clarity and argument's sake, I'm including the notion of saying the words to appease the oppressor, but not believing them in one's heart. This may make it a two-part argument, I know, but I consider it all connected.
Thomas,
I agree that my earlier name calling was inappropriate and I apologize.
FWIW, I was reacting to what I perceived to be a trend among many to reduce the recent clerical sexual scandal as the quintessential argument in rebuttal to anyone who attempts to defend an orthodox (small “o” intended) Christian perspective. The debate usually goes something like:
Regarding X the Church teaches Y.
So what, the Church is filled with child rapists.
Obviously, this is a discussion stopper, and often reveals a pre-existing hostility to the Church by those for whom the scandal merely confirms their bias. For this reason I am admittedly skeptical of the motives of those who refer to the scandal in discussion. However, I recognize that this loss of credibility the Church has suffered is for the most part, if not in the entirety, due to some all too human gross errors in judgment made by some leaders in the Church. After all is said and done, without minimizing any suffering of victims, this loss of credibility represents the greatest loss for society as a whole.
Franklin: Our church has recently been reading the book of the Maccabees at vespers, in which several hundred years before Christ a family of Jews in Jerusalem stood up against their Greek overlords and were killed for it (it's the saga from which the celebration of Hanukkah comes). Their mother tells her sons, "Stand up, boys. Don't be afraid to die. God is bigger than the Greeks" (very loosely paraphrased here). It's a message that seems incomprehensible in this society, but it's an answer that, according to Scriptures, helped preserve the Jewish culture through its time of crisis.
All I'm saying is that a man who says, "I'll deny Christ; just don't hurt my children," is saying something very understandable. But he's also saying something that, for good or ill, reveals how he views the cosmos (for example, perhaps that God is incapable of providing for his children).
The Roman Empire was overcome by people who were unwilling to deny Christ. during those early centuries many did decide to save themselves by maintaining mental reservations or something. The Church, after some discussion, decided to accept them back as repentant sinners (which we all are, at best, anyway).
But I'm not saying "should." I'm saying, this is the point where someone tells what he really believes. But some of us may come to that point and be surprised at what we do believe.
Thanks, Jan. I'm well familiar with the Hanukkah story, with three bar/bat mitzvahed children.
I appreciate the analogy you draw. I'd just like to point out the one thing that causes me to stop and think:
The Maccabees, even the Hebrews in Egypt, were in a position of relative equality, in that they could fight back or defend themselves in a general sense. The Fox journalists were in a very unequal situation: kidnapped, taken to an unknown location, and not just at the mercy of their captors whims, but without a clue as to what those whims might be.
Defense of faith, in a situation of relative equality, indeed any life-or-death decision, is made from a position of strenght, with full understanding of all the consequences. Being helpless, and suddenly faced with a decision and no time to ponder, allows for no such understanding, no time to ponder, no weighing of the consequences of the sacrifice.
In my humble, Pagan opinion, with full concession to not understanding the Christian POV, I find myself focusing on that disparity, that lack of relative equality, the lack of even a few moments to ponder my fate and make a decision that comes from my faith, and not from my gut reactions. I place the full blame on the kidnappers, and hold their victims blameless, not because I denigrate the strength and importance of faith, but for the opposite reason: anyone can be overwhelmed in the moment, and still have the same faith before and after that moment, no matter what the moment may force on them.
Franklin --
I don't "blame" the reporters for the decision they made, for whatever reason they decided to make it (although the question one of them is quoted as asking -- "Did we really convert?" -- seems a little clueless, since he, of all people should know, but maybe he was caught off guard by the reporter also).
But I tell you that if I were in their position and made the decision they made, even if, even if, even if, I would return to civilization dismayed at what I had learned about my own faith.
And there was certainly a large disparity in power between the early Church and the Roman Empire, but in just three centuries for good or ill (and it was some of both), the "powerless" Christians had turned the Empire inside out.
Jan, you make good points. I just want to reiterate something I wrote in a related thread: those two journalists experienced trauma most of us will not be faced with. The one's reaction, his "Did we convert?", could easily be a sign of his reaction to that trauma. Many are expecting a rational aftermath to the incidents; what they should expect is post-traumatic stress syndrome, and all the attendant internal chaos and pain as those men try to get their lives back. That, more than anything else, is why I find the second-guessing of them so offensive.
The crux of the issue, is the acknowledgement that there is an 'absolute truth' worth dying for--and His name is Jesus Christ. Many Christians of the Western world are nominal at best, and their lives are ruled by materialism, superficiality, relativism, and various other 'isms'. For many, the Christian faith is only 'skin deep', and many have not really thought out the responsibilities--and consequences of being a Christian. Every day, I renew the promises of my Baptism, and I ask the Lord to give me the grace to be faithful to Him EVERY day, and I pray never to deny HIM--even unto death. I have felt greatly strengthened in my day to day life, and my faith and trust has grown deeper. I also have great inner peace, perhaps this is a wake-up call for all of us to grow in our faith.
of americans without health insurance of americans without health insurance of americans without health insurance // your credit card account your credit card account your credit card account
By posting here, you agree to abide by the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct.
