Photo: where we had coffee in Nantes and it cost us 19 Euros.One of the glaring questions for a discussion of martyrdom is something of the lines of 'what are we to do with those who died in sectarian violence between Christians?' That is: what of those who were executed for being Catholic/Protestant/Anabaptist? In what sense are they martyrs?
There are two obvious ways to analyse this question. First, you could take the traditional view and say that only the martyrs to my particular cause were truly martyrs because only they were dying for the truth. And, in addition, you might seek to take the high moral ground (as Foxe does) and show that Catholics burnt far more heretics than Protestants ever did. As Augustine said, not the suffering but the cause makes the martyr. He wouldn't have the Donatists as martyrs, and was quite happy to set the soldiers on them.
Or, second, you could take the view that in some sense martyrs of every hue were (at least potentially) true martyrs. Now to do this, you have to theorise that both Cranmer and Thomas More were in some sense witnessing to Christ - perhaps imperfectly, but equally validly. This isn't an easy route to follow, because you have clashing beliefs in force.
What won't do is to see the martyrs as merely witnessing against crown/church practices of execution. That is not what the martyrs saw themselves as doing! Take Cranmer for example - I don't think he would have denied Mary the right to execute heretics by burning, even if he would have disputed her criteria for selecting victims. He was quite happy to burn those he thought were heretics after all! Even the more radical reformers (say, the Dutch Mennonites) did not see themselves as dying for some principle like non-violence. They thought they were testifying to Christ.
I guess a third, and more secular, strategy would be to say that the whole martyrdom idea is dangerous when applied to this period because all it does is bolster sectarianism and its potential for violent conflict.
Hmm..
9 comments:
What won't do is to see the martyrs as merely witnessing against crown/church practices of execution. That is not what the martyrs saw themselves as doing!
Excellent post. It's good to see a nettle being grasped, in these self-indulgent times.
Would you be happy with the statement that this is one area, at least, in which there has been unambiguous moral improvement in the church since the reformation period?
19 Euro pour café? Alors!
In the opinion of this non-(coffee) drinker u waz right royally ripped off and something needs to be done about that. I think it's time we either (a) started preaching that the Bible takes a very strong anti-Caffeine line and that society would be better off without coffee to which end all faithful Christians should lobby their Congressman (doesn't matter if you're not American) to legislate against the production and consumption of coffee (since it is obviously far more damaging to the hip pocket and the state of the soul than alcohol, cannabis or other drugs) or (b) invade France along with the coffee producing countries and as the occupying power award exclusive supply and distribution contracts to Starbucks and thereby liberate the world from this tyranny, securing a cheap and abundant flow of coffee for the foreseeable future.
I personally prefer the first option.
Sorry can't help myself...
I was under the impression that Americans didn't need to worry about this issue, as what is served in the USA as coffee is really just dishwater with food colouring in!
If I get howled down for this, I'm pretty sure it doesn't count as martyrdom, by the way.
We were looking at Stephen in Bible study last night, Acts 6 only, and noticing the tight parallels between his portrayal and Jesus/apostles...along with the significant usage of 'crown' in the NT as perhaps picking up on Stephen as the model of perseverance to the end. I'd suggest that Acts 6, anyway, would support the idea that a martyr is one who is standing for Christ, witnessing to him and his gospel. That is, still an objective assessment, rather than subjective - I guess I'm with Augustine here. Though whether this requires me to non-martyr the heretics is a different matter!
Cyprian writes, "that it is not martyrs that make the Gospel, but that martyrs are made by the Gospel" (Epistles, XXII ANF).
I think my project is turning into a theology of martyrdom in Cyprian.
- Seumas
Is it possible that there is an eschatalogical "open-endedness" to martyrdom? That the final judgment offers the perfected martyrs crown as vindication?
I don't think I have a problem with Cranmer and More both being (potentially) martyrs (I like David's eschat vindication thought) - was the truth owned entirely by either side?
Great insight. The question becomes "Who did he/she die for? My Jesus or Their Jesus?"... Sounds like this:
1 Corinthians 1:12 (English Standard Version)
English Standard Version (ESV)
12What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
All the more reason for Christians to love one another. We never know who we might have to sit next to at the Wedding Feast.
Wow. Now I know why I blog... thanks for these really stimulating comments.
Seumas - I like more and more ole Cyprian. Love to share with you in this project!
Byron: I am with you, although More really is more politician I think than anything. Not really a witness to Christ per se. However, I am aware that 'not having the whole truth' etc is a very 21st century pomo sceptical way to think of the problem.
Cyberp: that's a really stimulating idea. I asked Oliver O'Donovan about the question this weekend: he said, in one sense it is enough for us to know that there is such a thing AS martyrdom without having to declare (VAtican bureaucracy style) who is and who isn't exactly a martyr. Better for us to clarify the concept of true witness to Christ and live it: let God's providence do the rest...
Yes for our purposes, now, it is a human created label. No one can proclaim themselves a martyr, it is a significance to your death attached by judgement of others after the event. Bound to be contentious, futile to drive for absolutism in the lists. Analogous in a way to marriage, which is an important bibilical concept, but culturally defined.
Post a Comment