The story of Archbishop Luwum of Uganda is a remarkable one: we don't have many martyrs in the Anglican communion (though we have made a few). He was murdered by Idi Amin in 1977. You can pick up the full details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janani_Luwum
Like many modern martyrs, the exact meaning of his death is contested. Was he killed as the authorities said in a car crash? Was he shot by Amin himself? And how exactly did the death of Luwum testify to Jesus? Did he rebel to late? Or should he have been more compliant?
Anyhow: ponder his life - and his death - for a minute.
3 comments:
I have always found janani's death an inspiration.
He was martyred for confronting a world leader. He reminds me very much of Daniel -- See Daniel 5:22-25.
What do you regard as the significance of martyrs? I can understand that their stories can be inspiring and a testament to the reality of their relationship with Jesus above all. But Jesus was really the only person who didn't "deserve" death; in the sense of didn't require grace from God to know eternal life.
The bible teaching that "death has lost its sting" is a very hard one to feel emotionally this side of the grave. We can know it intellectually and it can give some comfort, but it doesn't mean we won't grieve. I think it is very natural of us to fear death and treat it as something dreadful and extra significant, but that grief over death, and the meaning or purpose often ascribed to it, seems like a very human reaction. From a heavenly perspective, is the sacrifice of martyrs really only different in degree, not kind, from any sacrifice a christian makes because of his or her love for Jesus? We have all died to this world, are the martyrs just ones called upon to demonstrate it in a more extreme way than most? Why wouldn't you include in your study other notable sacrifices for christian belief that didn't include death, such as loss of body parts, or reputation, family, wealth?
I suppose I'm wondering if you are studying them beacause of an inherent unique status (I suppose I mean from God's perspective) or because of the cultural phenomenon of how they are accorded special reverence in human terms, by the church, such as giving them notable burials, etc. I mean the emotional power, in human terms, of sacrifice to death can be harnessed for any cause really: you may be able to make meaningful study of muslim, shinto or agnostic ideological martyrs.
What does a subset of "christian"+"died for the faith" really mean? The rejoicing in heaven is over a lost sheep who is found... cause of physical death is not, presumably, a particularly meaningful subset (or maybe it is, and I just haven't considered the relevant passages). In human terms "died for the faith" is a noteworthy subset, but how is christian different from others, if not in heavenly terms?
I suppose I have in truth always regarded the special reverence given to martyrs as an understandable, quite helpful, but not theologically necessary church tradition, that has an element of quaintness to it. In a similar category to sainthood, or putting up plaques for memorable church members who have passed on.
p knight
Well as a protestant, YES - the martyrs differ from the rest of us in degree, not kind. You will see in Catholic thinking a difference - they will site martyrdom as a guarantee of heavenly bliss. I say, we may hold someone to be a martyr from an earthly perspective but actually discover that God's verdict on them is different in the end.
Is it not theologically necessary? Well i suppose remembering the saints is actually a witness to the ongoing power of God to work in the world across generations. maybe?
Post a Comment