I can agree with much of what the author is saying about the Catholic Church. However, one thing is to complain about a car moving forward too slowly because the driver has his foot on the brakes too often , and another thing is to think that the problem would be solved if the car had no brakes at all.

Noel Preston writes: As we moved from sanctuary to sanctuary, there were reminders of martyrs who witnessed to costly discipleship, sometimes in spite of the established church, though such stories often went unmentioned by our guides. For instance, the official tour of Westminster Abbey made no mention of the ten twentieth century martyrs (including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Father Kolbe and Martin Luther King) represented in a row of stone busts above the entrance to the Abbey.

Were Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Father Kolbe and Martin Luther King martyrs to their faith? If we look at the circumstances of their deaths that is in doubt. Both Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Father Kolbe were killed by the Nazis who were for the most part supported by German Christians. Martin Luther King was murdered for his activism in opposing segregation and the oppression of black people. Most white Christians in the south supported that oppression. Their religious beliefs may well have been a factor in their acts. However, that ignores the far more numerous communicants of the same faiths who supported those who murdered them.

Born and bred a Catholic, Hitler grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."

In Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Most German Christians accepted and supported Hitler.

continued

continued

F. G. Wood wrote “The Arrogance of Faith.”

Wood's argument rests on two fundamental precepts of Christianity. His first argument is that Christianity's devotion to evangelisation and belief that only Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life" give Christians a superiority complex vis-à-vis non-Christians. "Christianity - from Richard the Lionhearted to Billy Graham - has almost certainly been responsible for more worldwide proselytizing and obtrusion than any religion in history. One can only wonder how many 'infidels' have been killed or enslaved in the name of Christ”

The second Christian precept that Wood says contributes to its racism is the Christian teaching on the Bible. Christianity's belief in the inerrancy of scriptures, according to Wood, gives the Christian blinders when it comes to dealing with people of other faiths. In the United States, Southern Protestants took the King James Version (a deeply flawed translation) and used it, along with their view of the Bible's inerrancy, to justify the holding of slaves. The King James Version rarely made distinctions between servants and slaves by often using the same English word in translating very different Greek and Aramaic words. But to the Southern slaveholder, grey areas in Biblical translations didn't matter. The slave owner would read Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondsmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you" and believe that God had ordained slavery. The Bible is the inerrant word of God himself. The Bible authorizes the enslavement of heathens. Africans are not Christian, therefore they are heathens. Therefore God must approve of enslaving the Africans.

After the Abolition of slavery most southern Christians continued their racist attitudes to support denying black people the vote and equal rights to education and public facilities.

Many white Christians supported the civil rights movement, but I think more supported the continuation of white dominance.

Christians emphasise the martyrdom of Christians, but many Christians ignore the martyrdom of others caused by Christian oppression. I think the number of Christian oppressors is far greater than the number of Christian martyrs.

"In my heart of hearts the question was never far away: what would the Nazarene think of all this?"

Since 'the Nazarene' -- for goodness' sake, why not just call him 'Jesus' like everyone else? -- was almost certainly a fictional character, you can presumably make up any kind of response you like on his behalf. But why stop there? Why not ask what would Gandalf have thought of it? Or Gulliver? Or Gilgamesh? You're just as likely to get a meaningful answer.

An interesting article. I hope that the end of Christendom and the secularisation of society will ultimately prove beneficial both for society and for Christianity, but there’s no doubt it is a difficult transition, especially for the more traditional denominations.

David F

You make some good points and I agree with much of what you say, but I’ll take issue with some of it. You say that Bonhoeffer, King etc. do not qualify as martyrs because their persecutors and opponents included many Christians, and because their message was ostensibly more political than religious.

You rightly recall Christianity’s shameful record of persecuting other faiths. Sadly, it also persecutes its own. Since about the fifth century many (perhaps most) of the people the churches have called martyrs have been killed by fellow-Christians, and often for political reasons. Bonhoeffer is no less entitled to be called a martyr than Edward the Martyr, Joan of Arc, Thomas Moore, Becket and Cranmer, and a host of others.

And Jesus was a Jew crucified by secular Roman authorities because he was perceived as a political threat.

I believe that Christianity does not belong in the machinery of power, which is why the end of Christendom is ultimately to be welcomed.

John J

Far more historians think that Jesus existed, than think he was invented - including those of faiths other than Christianity, or no faith at all. It is by far the most simple and logical explanation for the accounts we have of Jesus’ life and death.

But even if you were right, and Jesus was only a literary character, it doesn’t mean that Noel’s question is meaningless. What would Gandalf think, or Harry Potter, or Atticus Finch, or Sherlock Homes, is a perfectly reasonable question assuming their character is drawn plausibly and consistently enough to provide an exemplar.

certainly the article brings out the Christopobics who continue to be their interpretation on things to justify their own beliefs no matter how perverted.

Rhian,

David f knows that I disagree with his interpretation of history, as do many, obviously not all, professional historians. However, as far as the meaning of the term “martyr” goes, I agree with him.

Wikipedia: “A martyr … is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce, or accept, a belief or cause, usually religious.”

On the other hand, my dictionary has the definition as “a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs”.

Christians (but apparently also David f) accept the first definition - you become a martyr if you “refuse to renounce” your belief - whereas others, notably Muslims, accept the second one: A Muslim who thinks his beliefs command him to become a suicidal terrorist is a “martyr” according to the second definition, not the first. Crusaders received the blessings of the Church, to put it mildly, but nobody who died fighting in the Crusades was called a martyr. And I do not think Bonhoefer was aked by the Nazis to “renounce” his beliefs to get off the hook (the same Martin Luther King), as e.g. the first Christians, or later the heretics, were.

It was interesting that reference was made to the book The Pope's War by Matthew Fox,to Vatican II, Benedict/Ratzinger and the so called "new" evangelization.
I wonder if he has read all of Fox's book because its basic argument is that Ratzinger and the previous pope systematically shut everything that was proposed by/at Vatican II down to the degree that all of the potential changes advocated by Vatican II are now totally dead in the water.
Simultaneously Fox points out that the various cultural agendas of the "catholic" church are now controlled by uber-patriarchal anti-feminist, anti-progressive "traditionalist" outfits such as opus dei, legionaires of christ, and communion & liberation.
Which is also to say that the Living Spirit has been well and truly killed.

George

My dictionary defines martyr as a person who suffers for bearing witness to the truth and as a person who suffers for their beliefs.

The Roman Catholic catechism states that:

“Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He [sic] bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude."

The origin of the word “martyr” is “witness”, and one can witness by actions as well as words.

By your definition, it is arguable whether St Stephen would qualify – he was killed for what he said, but Acts records no explicit invitation to renounce his beliefs or to return to mainstream Judaism. He endured death, but did not appear to go to the Temple knowing he would die that day (unlike Bonhoeffer, who was aware of his destiny well before his death). The same would be true of many other martyrs.

Bonhoeffer and King could well have avoided death if they had renounced their beliefs, or failed to act on them. Unless we separate belief and action, then they were witnesses who died for their faith, too.

Dear George,

You wrote:

Wikipedia: “A martyr … is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce, or accept, a belief or cause, usually religious.”

On the other hand, my dictionary has the definition as “a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs”.

Implicitly you have called into play three definitions.

1. One may suffer for their faith even though they have taken no action and have not been given the opportunity to renounce it. Some would term such a person a martyr. That would not include a suicide bomber. It would include people who have been sainted by the Catholic Church who were killed because of their faith.

2. Taking an action that one believes would advance their cause or belief and results in their own suffering. That would include a suicide bomber or a crusader.

3. You are correct in assuming the definition I was implicitly making was the one cited in Wikipedia. By that definition Bonhoeffer, Kolbe and King were not martyrs.

Of course depending on one's point of view one may sympathise with or admire an individual in any of the three categories cited above. I admire John Brown, a fervent Christian who opposed slavery. He falls into category 2. above. He was hanged for initiating a slave revolt in 1859. I made a pilgrimage to his grave in August 2012. Robert E. Lee presided at his execution. Lee who I regard as a vile person led an army against his country in the service of the Confederacy which supported slavery. After the Civil War he was honoured, and many still honour him.

Rhian,

I take your point, St Stephen is a good example. The RC Catechism refers explicitly only to Christians, is more an apology of the term than a clear definition, and I do not think it is intended to apply also to heretics burned at stakes. There are many ambiguities in the common usage of the word "martyr", e.g what it means to “bear witness”.

I was mainly concerned with the essential difference between the Christian and Muslim understandings of the word "martyr" or witness (to faith).

Noel Preston writes:
<<Is it inevitable that those who seek a spirituality, informed by the Jesus way, but stripped of unbelievable dogma, must either jump ship or risk being pushed overboard?>>

My answer is "No". A great many of those treading a spiritual path along the "Jesus way" are still active within a church but unburdened by "unbelievable dogma". They include both clergy and lay-people. The trend is towards esoteric rather than exoteric faith. Because of the very nature of esoteric religion such people tend to make much less noise about it all in the wider community. They include numerous Christians represented and inspired by the same Matthew Fox mentioned by the Noel Preston.

The religious institutions are changing and will continue to do so, even though the slow pace may challenge our patience. You don't have to rely on your institutional church in your effort to pursue your faith and build the church of the future. Be the vital organs and neurons rather than the skeleton, whose sustenance actually comes through you.

Dear david f,

As I said, the terms involved in the definition of martyr are ambiguous. You are right to say that “some” might call martyrs those “suffering for their faith”: the Communist rule in East/Central Europe “produced” a number of them. However, technically the Church would not call them all martyrs or even saints, although some folk referred to many of them in those terms.

So I agree that beside the two technical definitions - one preferred by Christians one by Muslims - there is also a third, looser meaning of the word as “suffering for one’s faith (or convictions)”.

>>Taking an action that one believes would advance their cause or belief and results in their own suffering. That would include a suicide bomber or a crusader.<<
I think this is the difference between the Christian and Muslim understanding of the term martyr I referred to. The suicide bomber and crusader (or rather anti-crusader) are martyrs in the Muslim, not Christian, understanding of the word. Besides, the death in case of a suicide bomber is intentional, that of a crusader, as of any warrior, was not.

>>By that definition Bonhoeffer, Kolbe and King were not martyrs.<<
I agree, unless you use the term in that looser sense of “suffering for one’s faith”. Kolbe, the Catholic among them, is technically not even that. He was canonized and declared “martyr of charity”, apparently meaning not a martyr in the Catholic meaning of the word as quoted by Rhian from the RC Catechism.