Brandon: I don’t know anything about the whole JFK biz. Nada. My history book says it was Oswald, and I don’t have basis for anything better than that.

Regarding Star Wars versus Star Trek, there is no comparison. Star Wars forever. Even with the new movies that Lucas has released in his senility. Lightsabers and the force will always trump phasers and the Vulcan neck-pinch.

Brandon: Without getting in over my head…Cassie is the “Do you believe in God?” girl. Shot in the library. Overheard by a survivor. Rachel was shot outside. Now, the story of asking “Do you believe in God?” has been told abut Rachel and another CHS victim. You can see what’s happening. In the very human process of bringing some meaning to this tragedy, there is some confusion, and I am afraid the truth will never be known. I’ve studied Columbine a lot, for obvious reasons, and in my view, the only good evidence for the question is Cassie Bernall in the library.

Amidst all of this talk of martyrs, the victim at Columbine has been mentioned several times. People keep mentioning Cassie Bernal, but I thought for the life of me that it was Rachel Scott. Her dad goes on tours talking about the shootings as a type of evangelistic outreach, and he came to IU last year. As far as I can remember, she is the one that refused to renounce belief in God. Were there two?

The Voice of the Martrys that Phillip mentioned is on the web here. They send out a free monthly newsletter that is very informative, as well as a weekly prayer email that keeps you updated on the very large amount of persecution that is happening in the world right now, especially in the Middle East, Asia, and parts of Africa.

Now, I don’t know if this topic is a DH, but what are your opinions on the assassination of JFK: Oswald or conspiracy. I ask because this topic used to fire my imagination and I did some reading on it. (Posner’s book “Case Closed” is excellent.) A good Oswald-did-it site is here.

Also, Star Trek or Star Wars? My roommate is watching ST:TNG right now. The Federation is way too diplomatic. Go Klingons! But my lot is cast with Star Wars as it has always been.

When Kynn comes in disputing the Apostle’s Creed, he gets run out of the tavern. When Dr King does it, we promote him to sainthood. So apparently not even the Creed is the minimum—all it takes to be a Christian is a desire to live your life by WWJD?

Kynn probably did dispute the Apostle’s Creed, but he was exited for dropping the F-bomb. He was well aware of what was going on, and we’ve maintained a good on-line relationship.

I suppose that Dr. King “disputing the Apostle’s Creed” is a reference to theological research papers during Dr. King’s college and/or seminary days. As a former seminary student, I would ask the audience to consider what our professors always said to us: This is theological formation. It’s your journey. Not your final point of arrival. I consider it a cheap shot of the lowest kind to start quoting someone’s college or seminary work years later as evidence the person’s faith was about “disputing the Apostle’s Creed.” If any of you plan to ruin me with this method, have at it, but you are a sad case.

I’ve read three major bios of King, and I’ve read many of his sermons, writings and books. To conclude from a seminary paper that the man who wrote “Letter From Birmingham Jail” or Strength to Love lived his life discarding the Apostle’s Creed is outrageous to me. You are entitled to your own opinion. But please, produce a quote from the mature Dr. King disowning the Apostle’s Creed.

No one elevated Dr. King to “sainthood.” I am including him in the Christian family, and he is, in my personal opinion, along with many others of his era, a legitimate martyr for the Christian faith in America. I said in my first post that many Christians couldn’t own the Christians who died as civil rights martyrs as Christian martyrs, and I was right. I never made a case for sainthood. I can name more of MLK’s flaws than most people in any crowd. But his life and legacy are worthy of celebration, and I tell my African-American students that I am embarassed they don’t know and understand Dr. King’s message.

He wasn’t an evangelical. He was a liberal of his era, which makes him considerably superior to many evangelicals and P/Cs of today. (I’ll take Willamon over Warren any day.) The man who preached this sermon isn’t an evangelical or an evangelist. I couldn’t live on just this. I’ll agree it’s flawed. But I’d go hear him anytime. Anyone on here READ Fosdick? Neibuhr? King? Or just what evangelicals have to say about them? You might be surprised. (Try Fosdick on The Meaning of Prayer.)

”...All it takes to be a Christian is….” No one entered into a discussion of all it takes to be a Christian, or WWJD.

One thing I’ve learned about those theologians. They can judge anybody. Any time. They are a sure shot. Why leave it to God? Why let God say on the last day if someone has faith? Why not look at their seminary papers or their adultery and say NOW that they don’t have faith? Why not draw the lines of the Kingdom with my little crayon so God will know where they are when He shows up? Has the irony hit anyone else? The MORE you know about theology, then the MORE everyone else has to know to be saved. And the more passes you can write yourself for pronouncing in advance whether a professing Christian is really saved. Such confidence. Theology is such a fortunate discipline.

When my students ask me if so and so is in heaven, I say I have no idea. That makes me a liberal, right? It’s our Bob Jones Press textbooks and our Chick Tracts that confidently tell us who is in hell. (“Now kids, Shakespeare was a great man, but he’s in hell.”) I should have just looked up MLK in the index of the BJU Press American history book. It would have saved me all this trouble.

Well, Chuck Baldwin could have straightened me out.

Don’t look for the JN, cause it’s not there.

MacLaren vs. Warren

Michael: Understood. No, I wouldn’t qualify them as “Christianmartyrs” (I’m gonna start using it as a single word so I don’t get confused), although they certainly may have been Christians who were martyred. And that includes ol’ Jim Elliott.

Scott: Not to quibble- because you’re a nice man, and funny too :) but using your line of thinking…

The four International Mission Board personnel killed in Iraq this week are not Christian martyrs. They were there working with water treatment, etc., and were likely killed for being Americans. Same with the IMB workers last year in Yemen who were shot in their hospital. Again, the motive appears political. By removing the reasons a person is in harms way as a consideration in Christian martyrdom, you make the only martyrs people like Graham Staines. In fact, Jim Elliott wouldn’t qualify by your definition, because the people who killed him and the others had no idea who they were or why they were in Ecuador.

And the mission of Jesus to redeem the world was a totally unique mission. Judging MLK or any other person fighting for social justice by the standard that “Jesus didn’t do it while he was here,” doesn’t work, in my view, because 1) Jesus was here to die on a cross for the sin of the world and 2) The Old Testament and the New Testament are pretty loud in advocating social justice.

Just a thought.

Gee, I could spend the next 30 minutes going through the OT to locate verses that show that God was just as angry with Israel for the social injustices they allowed as He was for their idolatry. Along the way, I could (following Michael’s suggestion) point out that it’s James, of all people, who says that Christians have an obligation to care for the social outcasts and oppressed, or even provide a definition of Manicheism that would be more accessible than sifting through the Catholic Encyclopedia’s long discussion of the roots of it in Persia, and then go on to describe how when it appears in Christianity it incorporates neo-Platonism to posit a Spiritual=Good/Material=Bad duality that is both a denial of the image of God in man (which, if I remember correctly, at least one Lutheran pastor cited in a link here once did) and clearly opposed both in scripture and in the writings and actions of the Christian church for centuries, and cite Augustine a lot. Or, I could go home and spend time with my family for a few hours.

Now that was a really hard decision. Good night!

MLK: Whoa, boys…

I never said that MLK’s actions weren’t good. They were. He did good things. He supported ideas that, had Christ been a living human being at the time… I hate to say it, but I don’t think He would have done. While racism is opposed to basic Christian teaching, doctrine, and Scripture.. I think Christ was more concerned about the condition of the individual’s heart rather than the treatment of an individual race. He didn’t exactly march down the streets of Rome to preach for racial equality for the Jews…

Having said that… MLK did some good things. My only argument is that he was not a “Christian Martyr” – all one phrase. He may have been a Christian.. and I believe he was… He may have been a martyr… I have no doubt about this… He wasn’t killed for being a Christian. The motivation behind his killing wasn’t that he was a follower of Christ. It wasn’t that he was doing Christian things. He was martyred because he was attacking a social structure and seeking political change – not religious change. Although his ultimate desire may have been a change in the hearts and minds of people, King’s actions at the time were centered around changing a political and social structure in order to affect political and social – not spiritual – change.

Hence, King was not a Christian Martyr.

Kynn was booted for using the F-bomb. BTW, Kynn AIMS me frequently and we have good conversations.

Has sainthood or racism been brought up on here?

“In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, unbiblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.”

Yeah, he’s a liberal. Of course, he’s also right. The most insidious and widespread heresy that the body of Christ faces today isn’t liberalism, it’s Manicheism.

Josh: Who accused you of racism?

You don’t have to be a true believer to admire Christian ethical teaching. In fact, liberal Christianity is founded on the idea that Christianity is an ethic or social movement as opposed to a faith about a certain person or individual; the historical events are irrelevant. Wanting to be like Jesus and do the things he commanded doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot if you deny that he is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses can be just as ethical as Dr King…it doesn’t make them believers—at least Mormons believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. What about Ghandi? He was a great guy who probably admired some of Jesus’ teaching; let’s canonize him as well.

When Kynn comes in disputing the Apostle’s Creed, he gets run out of the tavern. When Dr King does it, we promote him to sainthood. So apparently not even the Creed is the minimum—all it takes to be a Christian is a desire to live your life by WWJD?

And did I say anything bad about the civil rights movement or King’s vision? No, but somehow, saying he wasn’t a Christian is equal to writing him off and being a racist.

Michael: Thanks for the clarification regarding Cassie’s words. I’ve not researched her actions, I’ve simply heard about them. About the only expertise I can bring to the table about Columbine is that “I lived in Colorado when it happened” IOW “zilch”.

MLK Phillip Yancy did a great job in his book Soul Survivor describing MLK’s life and what’s even better he described the response of the church to MLK’s ministry and activism. Yancy describes hearing him called “Martin Luther Coon” from the pulpit.

Killer Post Jim, I see many fundies (some of whom I’m related to) making excuses for Jim Bakker while attacking MLK. Shoot, if his wife still speaks positively about him who are we to comment. My wife and I just ran across a bit of a covenant we’d made a little over ten years ago related to some of my “stuff”. I’d have to admit that she’s grown more in grace than I’ve changed.

As they say in MN: Ish.

(PS Jim: I’m running through some of the iTunes previews for “Tangle Eye” right now, I think I’ll put down an iBuck or two and see if they grow on me.)

Both Luther’s were wrong.

Unconformable silence.

Are we talking about the workings of MLK or his theology? His fruit showed that he loved people and wanted equality. As should all Christians. As for his theology? I go back and forth on that. Remember John 9 and the blind guy? Even after he was given sight he was a heretic (or at least ignorant).

I don’t chime into racial stuff because I am white, work out, and shave my head. I can’t win.

Unless an individual claims to be a theologian take their theology with a grain of salt.

All Believers are to have fruit. I think when a baby follower of Jesus (regenerate or not) attempts to expound beyond their knowledge they (can) err and if not corrected create a schism.

We can all thank the reformers that they kept the church pure of whacky doctrine. Ahem. (jn)

I just noticed that nobody commented on my Psalms parody the other day.

MLK died for your sins (except Kurt; he only died for 1/2 of Kurt’s sins.)

MLK wrote some stuff for his (liberal) seminary degree that embraced higher criticism and neo-orthodox. Big deal. I wrote papers in Bible college that argued for evidentialism (that is, that the objective evidence for Christ was sufficient to be compelling without the need for faith and the Holy Spirit,) and I wrote an exegesis of the “weaker brother” passage that manged to both mis-translate the Greek and misapply it. If I’m to be judged based on what I did in college, then I’m a KJV-only fundamentalist, and you’re all going to hell for swearing and drinking.

Evangelicals, and especially crypto-fundies, are extremely anxious to interpret away the “social justice” aspects of Christ’s teaching in order to get themselves off the hook. Doing so lets them argue the finer points of doctrine rather than going out to be Jesus to someone who needs it. MLK was a liberal who slept around. (Not that it vindicates him, but have you ever heard his wife?) Karl Barth ruined the church with his existentialist subjectivity and acceptance of the higher critics. Calvin was a vindictive little man who held grudges and colluded in a murder. Luther was a hothead who thought those who disagreed with him would go to hell. All true. Also, all irrelevant. All of them were men who, under the spirit’s influence, went out and tried to practice Christ-likeness in some area where they were convinced they were needed. For Barth, it was resisting (and later fleeing) the Nazis, and spending his Sundays preaching in prisons. For Calvin, it was writing long letters to French kings proposing a systematic theology. For Luther, it was shrugging off a corrupt Church hierarchy and restoring the concept of Grace to Christianity, even if it meant the risk of becoming a tool for insurrectionist Prussian princes.

MLK looked at bus seating, asked what Jesus would do, found an answer, and then he did it. He didn’t burn anyone, start a rebellion, blow anyone up, start a denomination, or call the Pope “Antichrist” in the process. I’d say based on the track record of other church heroes, he did a pretty good job.

Bonhoffer wasn’t a martyr killed for his faith. He was party to an assassination attempt that failed, and he got caught. He may have felt obligated by his convictions to support an attempt on Hitler’s life, but that doesn’t make him a martyr. Oh, and he’s wrong on “cheap grace,” too. How can something that God gives for free be cheap?

Kent: Unless my research has been wrong the last 5 years, Cassie did not say anything about Jesus. She was asked if she believed in God and said yes. I am not in any way demeaning her courage, because I am personally humbled by what she said and did. But since the killers picked her at random, and apparently asked a number of people the same question and shot all of them, I don’t see it as contributing to the Christian martyr status she’s been awarded. She is a martyr, but as I said, she isn’t the same sort of martyr as others we’ve named.

Scott: Malcolm X was murdered by radical Muslims who were angry at what they saw as his abandonment of the movement. The contrasts between himself and Dr. King are many, substantial and profound. One might see X as a martyr for a peaceful kind of Islam, but only as a victim of a violent variety.

Dr. King was explicitly Christian in everything he did. He preached non-violence from the Sermon on the Mount. In his books Strength to Love and Why We Can’t Wait, one cannot miss the faith of Dr. King. He may not have passed muster with Campus Crusade or John Macarthur, but he was devoted to following the teachings of Jesus on non-violence and love of neighbor. Dr. King attended a liberal college and seminary. I’m sure he wrote some papers that would fit in with what was taught in those classes. Yes, his tradition was the “liberal” tradition of the mid to late 20th century. I don’t think that throws him out as a Christian martyr. (Guys- everyone isn’t an evangelical. SOme people never did and never will use our language. )

Assessing Dr. King as being a liberal, an anti-Chrstian and a communist are familiar responses from some quarters. I get notes from these people any time I mention Dr. King to our students. We can thank J.Edgar Hoover, who no doubt would be on the 700 Club trashing MLK while in a nice dress today, for much of what we know. Of course, Dr. King did plagarize, and he did have commie friends, and he was unfaithful to his wife. (One of his paramours was a Ky legislator.) He was flawed. Big time.

BTW: I have cheated on tests. I have plagarized. I am a liar. I have failed my wonderful spouse in ways large and small a million times. I have friends who are not good Christians. Rumor is I am more like Capon than Macarthur in my theology. Some of my seminary papers would make you howl. I’ve been places and done things that I hope never make it into my bio, but if they do, so be it. I still won the pony.

Just wanted to mention that.

I’m not aware of anything in the later writings of Dr. King- which I’ve read repeatedly and taught repeatedly- that is anything less than what one would expect from someone in the theological tradition of Neibuhr and Fosdick. Liberal. Serious discipleship. Devotion to the application of the Christian worldview in the political realm. His sermons are better than a lot of what I’ve heard this week in our chapel. It takes Jesus considerably more seriously than 90% of the Christians I know, and here at OBI, I know some pretty good ones. If evangelicals, whose implication in racism in the south ought to be noted along with Dr. King’s moral failures, don’t want to own Dr. King as a Christian because he had ethical lapses and theological problems, fine. But I can’t see that taking away from the fact that he was a Jesus follower, following Jesus, and killed for doing so.

I am particularly impressed with how Dr. King made the non-violent ethic of Jesus and the suffering of Jesus central to what he taught, preached and practiced. It reminds me of that book of James. “I’ll show you my faith by my works.” :) Really, faulting Dr. King from behind our theology books on the third floor of the library is a bit of a laugh.

I really don’t care about Cassie Bernall’s doctrine of the Trinity or if she slept with someone on the last youth retreat. Her profession of Christian faith and resulting courage are inspiring and worthy of note. Martyrs aren’t judged as theologians or as paragons of moral virtue. They are judged by whether their lives and deaths remind us of Jesus.

(BTW I really hope that you folks have read Dr. King himself. I think that really is only fair.)

I live in Idaho. It was a few short years ago that Idaho made MLK day official here, and changed our slogan to “The Human Rights State.” I’ve had the privledge of reading an interesting perspective on MLK that might not be mainstream, and I have never really done the research to figure out what the truth is. Someone alluded to MLK’s whores, and someone to his theology, and these are just two things that seem to be blight on his record. That being said, I used the “I have a dream” format to win an independant candidacy for Secretary of State at Boys State when I was a junior in high school. Idiot teenagers can be so easily made to swoon.

Does anyone here get the Voice of the Martyrs newsletter? Any Bonhoffer fans or other “persecuted church” intrests? I met a fellow named Dan Baumann who got locked up in an Iranian prison accused of being a CIA spy until some Swiss folks working on the outside got him out. His story includes overhearing the guards saying how he must really believe in Jesus to risk his life to come tell the Iranians about Him. His book is called Imprisoned in Iran.

I don’t want to be a martyr. The disciple Jesus loved DIDN’T die a martyrs death. Whew. I just hope Jesus loves me.

Look, to be a Christian martyr, you have to be a Christian. MLK wrote papers debunking the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Deity of Jesus Christ, saying that they were based on the “experience” of the early church rather than historical reality. He was a good man (in a secular sense), but not a Christian. A Christian martyr is one who dies upon his confession, not simply because he’s so nice that he makes mean people super-mad.

With all the movie talk I’d like to mention that this drivel is coming to a theater near you.

Martyrdom is an interesting topic. I don’t think we understand how serious everyone else (read:non-western) takes religion. Remember burning people because they didn’t believe in the Trinity? I wonder what is worse. Dead heretics or freedom of faith.

Now they start their own churches.
Why couldn’t God tell mm… John to write “Attend with the saints a location within walking distance.”

please pray for my job interview (phase II)

I ran into a Calminian last night. Ugh. God planned for Judas to betray Jesus but he could have been saved, so he says. Bleh. Make up your mind dude.

PWinn: The story about your elderly friends at the WoF church makes me sick. I have a friend whose brother had some sort of limp for a long time in his life. The brother started going to the WoF church and called my friend to tell him that God healed his limp. He told him this on the phone for several months apparently. When my friend (lets call him James), saw his brother, the guy still had the limp!!! James, being a relatively rational human being, said to his brother, “Brother, you’re still limping!” to which the brother replied “No I’m not, I’ve been healed!”

This is a true story.

JimN:

To me, that means that the only time I should refuse sharing what I have with others in need is when I’m honestly convinced that “bailing them out” would actually hurt them…

There have been times when I’ve gone to the Lord in prayer over a friend’s financial needs and He seemed to clearly indicate that I wasn’t to help them out.

Matthew J: Are you a pastor or working for a church? In my most recent church stint I helped come up with the benevolence guidelines and most churches have a good set of rules to make that stuff work out alright. You can set a policy of giving $25 without anyone elses approval, give it by check so they have to cash it (they can cash it at your bank if they don’t have their own), and if they have a “bill” pay the bill company directly, things like that. You should be able to find or compile a “resource list” in your area of helping hands, like food banks, soup kitchens, public services that can help people in need. The number one thing to remember is that its not your responsibily to provide totally for a persons need. You can help, but you’re never to be the full support. The poor you will always have with you.

Jim: We were able to see Brennan Manning down in the cities in September, we loved our time listening to his booming voice. “Abba, I belong to You” still resounds in my thoughts.

It occurs to me that handing the couple that Phillip is referring to money, may be the same as handing Brennan a beer. But there are many other forms of giving.

It’s interesting that you bring this topic out today, Jim. I’ve really been struggling with this the last few days and especially today. I read a book by and about Jackie Pullinger called Chasing the Dragon and regardless what any one thinks of her theologically (Gasp! She speaks in tongues!), I really learned a lot from her especially in the way I look at people who have nothing and who also do not know Christ. I’ve been forced to repent my attitudes because when I get a phone call up here in my office saying that someone wants to see me because they “need help” with a bill or something, my instinct is to roll my eyes and walk down stairs wondering what reason this person will give for not being able to pay their electric bill. I know I’ve been lied to, but I give them money to help them out. I almost feel like the bizarro-James: instead of patting them on the back and telling them to stay warm, I give them what they want/need without so much as a word about why we help them. The most pressing issue for me is, “Am I perpetuating an unhealthy pattern in this person’s life to blow their money on the unimportant so they have to beg for the necessities?” Jackie Pullinger wrote about having a hard time not giving money to herion addicts in Hong Kong because on one hand, she knew they would go and buy drugs but on the other hand, it might keep them from killing or stealing. She decided not to give money but instead to take people in an get them rehabilitated. I don’t know – I’m in a quandry. On one hand I don’t want to perpetuate unhealthy actions but on the other hand I don’t want to stand before the Lord and have him ask me why I didn’t help so and so.

Too freaking complicated.

Phillip: Do you think it’s possible that one of the factors the couple you are referring to are struggling financially is due to giving to the WOF folks?

Their statement “God is doing this so that He can do something amazing miraculous for us.” may turn out to be true, just not in the way they are thinking.

I have and will pray for wisdom for you in dealing with this with your friends.

Phillip, Manning said over and over again: the God of the Bible is consistently overgenerous with us in love, grace, and provision. It’s funny you should bring this up, because we were discussing Acts last night at Bible Study, and the old “are Christians called to live communally” question came up. It was interesting to watch everyone in our group twist and turn to rationalize their (negative) answers.

I’ve been coming under a lot of conviction about this. I’ve come to the conclusion (at this point) that the only thing that should limit my charity to others (especially other believers) is a spirit-led understanding of stewardship. To me, that means that the only time I should refuse sharing what I have with others in need is when I’m honestly convinced that “bailing them out” would actually hurt them, and I don’t allow myself to reach that conclusion without double-checking my motives (“Am I really putting the other person’s needs ahead of mine here, or am I just rationalizing my stinginess”?) with a group of other believers with whom I’m in a mutual accountabilty agreement.

I’ve been told that I’m generous to a fault. I think that’s a good fault to have; it certainly appears to be one that God has toward me, at least in the grace department. I will say this about “Word of Faith”, though; that they aren’t being supported by their own church is a condemnation. If the local body isn’t rallying behind these people, then they are way off base whatever their teaching is. [Everybody sing with me now: “If we are the Body, why aren’t His hands healing? Why aren’t His feet moving?...]

Also, Phillip, email me and let me know what’s the best way for us to talk tech a bit.

A roundup, of sorts, of Passion press. Via Amy Wellborn.

Something Tom said is prompting me to write about a situation that bothers me quite a bit.

I know this couple that are straddling 50 – he’s just over, she’s just under. They are unfortunately at a very rough patch of life right now, out of work and already past broke, looking up at flat broke from underneath. After a lifetime of earning both poorly and very well, they have nothing. No house (they rent, and are very behind), no vehicles, no nothing. People debate about what poor is, and I’m telling you that these people are poor by Kentucky standards, but they’re not in Kentucky. That they eat at all is because people they know (not church friends) buy groceries for them. The husband makes his living (when he can) with a computer, but their computer is dying and he can’t afford to get it repaired. It’s very sad, and I wish that I had enough money to make life good for them again.

The think that bothers me, though, is that they go to one of those name-it-and-claim-it churches, and so by the twisted what-passes-for-logic of the “Word of Faith” crowd, they can’t even really acknowledge their dire straits. As things get worse, they become more and more convinced that “God is doing this so that He can do something amazing miraculous for us.” It breaks my heart to hear this, and I want to grab the guy and shake him by the shoulders, or just lock him up and keep him away from any Kenneth Copeland magazines for however long it takes for him to think like a reasonable person again. I’d rather they take advice from Oprah than from the clowns to which they’re listening. It was a just a few years ago that they had multiple brand-new cars, a big expensive house, and announced to the world that God’s blessing had arrived. Now? Well, apparently the same standard doesn’t apply.

The question for the bar is: Is ignorance really bliss? ‘Cause if so, this couple is apparently happier than a hog in slop. Actually, I suspect strongly that they are perfectly aware that they’re lying to themselves and everybody around them with this, “God is about to bless us” act — not that things won’t eventually get better for them, but that their current situation is at all in line with their doctrine — and so they aren’t ignorant at all, but rather in denial. It’s funny to read the silly “letters to the editor” in a Kenneth Copeland magazine, but to watch it happen in real life is somehow tragic.

Michael: We are told Cassie responded in the affirmative when asked if she believed in Jesus, she said yes and was shot. I agree that if she said no she’d likely have been shot too. I see the “C-Grade” in her case.

Regarding Jim Elliot, would he then be a “B-Grade” because though he was led by his faith to reach out to the Auca’s, they likely killed him because he was strange and new, not because he was a believer?

John & Betty Stam were killed by (I’m drawing from memory) Chinese Communists likely because they for being Americans just as much as they were for being Christians. Chinese (in all political forms) are pretty xenophobic. So, “B-Grade”?

I think MLK’s death had more to do with being “uppity” than with being a Christian, though I believe that he was doing what he was doing because of his faith. “B”.

So in Polycarp’s situation he was given the opportunity to recant “And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?” and chose not to…”A”.

So then the motive of the persecuter/murderer becomes paramount in martyrdom, does that then make the victims of the WTC attacks martyrs? The persecuters/murderers in that circumstance “perceive” America as being a “Christian/Jewish” country, the “Great Satan”, but many who died weren’t believers, so it would be impossible for them to be martyrs.

The criteria for Christian Martyrdom would then need to be: “A follower of Jesus, killed for being a follower of Jesus”.

It occurs to me that Modern Israel is awash with martyrs.

Cassie from Columbine: I agree, Michael. She wasn’t a martyr on the level of Polycarp or anything, but had she denied Christ then and there and said, “You know what – you guys are right… pass me an uzi,” she probably would have survived. It’s a bit of a stretch, but I stand by it.

MLK: When it came to race relations, MLK was doing the right thing. Good for him. He was also a Christian. Great for him. He was also a minister. Whoopee.

Here’s the problem I have, Michael… just because he was all three… and just because he was doing something Jesus would have done doesn’t make him a Christian martyr, IMO. Malcom X was shot, too… does that make him a Christian martyr because, in his later life, he advocated a similar stance to MLKs? Absolutely not.

MLK was indeed a martyr, and for a worthy cause, too. But he wasn’t shot for his Christianity. The guy who shot him didn’t go, “Well… he’s a black leader and he’s changing my society and he’s making my dear old neck redder’n ever… but to top it all off… he’s a Christian!”

Tom: I did read McLaren’s words about “The Passion” that Warren was responding to. I like a lot of what he has to say, though I find some of the “we defy the categories of modernity by becoming a category unto ourselves” rhetoric of the PoMo’s tedious at times.

I found McLaren’s response to the hype surrounding “The Passion” to be an appropriate balance to the “best witnessing opportunity in 2000 years” claim, which is the context in which McLaren wrote. I’ve gotten to the point where the hype about “new programs” is wearing pretty thin.

But Christiandom’s a pretty broad and flexible thing in it’s expression. I grew up about 20 miles north of Saddleback, and it’s pretty much the kind of thing that would work in SoCal. It’s what the people there like, a lot of flash and pizazz. If you think they spent too much on the church building, take a poll of the financial investment represented by what’s sitting in the parking lot some Sunday morning.

I end up just reminding myself that Saddleback is just what SoCal wants, which is why I moved.

Excellent question, thank you. Scott, great, thoughtful post.

I think that an interesting observation would be: “sometimes American’s don’t know a martyr when they see one”, and I guess that would be true of others as well. Why is it so easy for us to accept Cassie Bernall as a martyr and so difficult to accept Martin Luther King? I believe that MLK was a martyr because of his faith (which may be fuel for another QotD).

I do think we’ve broadened the term “martyr” too much, it is misapplied to someone who kills themselves in order to kill others. A better term might be “biological smart bomb”. I’m not able to recall any Biblical martyrs, or any in Foxe’s that were martyred in order to kill someone else.

In America “what’s successful” is the litmus; George Patton’s words, ”...your goal is to make some other poor b****** die for his country” sound a bit better to our ears. We admire Cassie’s bravery, I sure do, but regardless of what the Bible says “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” is still our mantra. Three American Christian martyr’s that come to mind from the recent (20th century) past are Jim Eliot and John & Betty Stam, we acknowledge them but somehow our responses to martyrdom are different than those of the early Christians.

A missionary friend in predominatly Muslim country that will have to remain nameless sent a prayer request last week for a woman of that country that had recently trusted Jesus. This woman went back to her family and is now enduring beatings and other atrocities, from her children.

Didn’t hearing that make you want to fight back? It had that effect on me. What was Stephan’s response? How did the other believers behave?

Forsaking all for the Gospel?

MLK the martyr: It’s better for his legacy that he was shot by a racist who hated what he was doing rather than being shot by the jealous husband of one of the women he was fooling around with.

[Editor’s Note: I find the above statement personally offensive in the highest degree. I’m leaving the statement on the blog for reasons of my own, and because it is Tom’s right to say what he thinks. I just want my readers to know that Tom isn’t speaking for me or my web site. MS]

Yesterday’s subject: I was so busy with seminary stuff that I didn’t have time to respond to yesterday’s discussion about power-mad pastors (well, that’s not really the subject, but that’s what I’m going to talk about). I’ve been in churches that had “pastor-as-dictator” model. That’s why I wound up running back to the denomination of my youth. The last place I was before going back to the DOC was a sorry excuse for a Vineyard church. The pastor there was, and still is, last I heard, so desperate to hang on to his position that he’s killing the church. He’s been pastor for about eight years now, and last I heard they are back to meeting in his home. When I was going to church there, he exercised “church discipline” on his right-hand man and his wife for continuing to fellowship with people who left the church! Half the time he didn’t preach the Word, he preached on some “prophecy” he received at some conference or something. And still he has his small group under the delusion that his church is going to someday be huge! It’s totally pathetic. I was so wounded from that experience I stayed out of church altogether for about 6-8 months. And I swore I would never go back to a church where the pastor ruled again.

OK, everyone pounced on Rick Warren again yawn. Question, though: did anyone bother to read what he was responding to? Did anyone click on the article by Brian MacLaren? Are you telling me that MacLaren was right, or less wrong, in what he said than Warren? It’s important, to be fair, to take what people say in context and not in a vacuum. (Disclaimer: I’m not necessarily a Warren fan, I’m just trying to be fair here.) MacLaren has this idea of what doesn’t appeal to what he calls “the emerging church” to be useless. Do you think he might be exaggerating the influence and the imaginary numbers of “the emerging”? That’s why Rick threw out those numbers, folks. He’s not saying “We’re bigger than any Lutheran church in the country, that means we’re right and the Lutherans are wrong.”

Scott: I’m running out of time, so I’ll try to come back to this.

Cassie Bernall was about a C- martyr. She wasn’t killed because of her resemblance to Jesus. She was murdered by a nut case who would have shot her no matter what. She was brave, but she wasn’t Polycarp. Evangelicals feel they NEED a Cassie Bernall, however, because they 1) largely reject the martyrs of African American Chrstianity- i.e. MLK- and 2) don’t have any of their own.

MLK is a Christian martyr in the highest sense. Doing what Jesus would do in a way Jesus would do it, and dying for that very reason.

Christian missionaries who die in Iraq giving water to Muslims provide a powerful witness to Jesus and a contrast to the Islamists.

Suicide bombers are murderers who call themselves martyrs. Christian martyrs are imitating Jesus and, as Jesus predicted, they are suffering for it because of their resemblance to him. Murdered Christians aren’t the truest martyrs. (Sorry Jim Elliott.) Christians killed BECAUSE they are Christians while doing what Jesus would do are IMPORTANT to true Christianity, and evangelicalism is shallow for avoiding this. And for not even valuing it. We care more about someone who dies of a disease than someone who dies as a martyr in the Sudan. That’s not healthy.

Martyrdom breeds fanatics and attention seekers. Despite that, we should value them, tell their stories and hold them up as heroes. It says that our faith is true enough to choose death over life. That’s crucial. It’s why Muslim terrorism is, unfortunately, a witness of a sorts to young Muslims.

Martyrdom is one of the most important religious issues in the world today.