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.