Would You Die For Your Faith?

The Spectator ^ | 10 Novem., 2001 | Katie Grant

[Romulus]

At the risk of being accused of treason and sedition - not a novel thing in my family - I admit to having a certain admiration for the young fundamentalist Muslims, with their east London or northern accents, eschewing home comforts to go off to fight for the faith of their fathers. They face the privations of cave-dwelling, the dangers of mortal conflict, and an uncertain welcome if they survive and return to Plaistow, Luton, Crawley, Birmingham or Burnley.

I'm not sure about the other places, but Burnley is no stranger to treason and sedition. My family comes from there. Our home, Towneley Hall (now owned by the Burnley Corporation), was once a centre of that other fundamentalist religion, recusant Catholicism. After the saying of Mass became illegal in 1559, we, too, were viewed with the deepest suspicion for having allegiances that ranked above Queen, country or government.

John Towneley, my ancestor, was heavily fined by Elizabeth I's Inquisition Council, and went to prison several times. Eventually, in order that his 14 children should not have the satisfaction of claiming for their father a martyr's crown, John was released from prison, mortally sick and almost blind, to be confined instead to his Towneley estates. His friend Sir Thomas Fitzherbert, from whom I am descended on my mother's side, was also stubbornly Catholic. He died in the Tower.

Ever since I can remember, therefore, the idea of dying for your faith has been held up as a pretty splendid, if not heroic, thing to do. And Towneley heroes were not confined to the Reformation. Hearing Mass in the tiny oratory built on to the end of our drawing-room at Dyneley - the house in which the Towneley bailiff used to live and where John and his family heard Mass in secret using an altar that could be folded up to look like a wardrobe - my five sisters, my brother and I often found ourselves sitting next to a small and very ancient leather frame enclosing a piece of hair. The legend reads, 'My cousin Frank Towneley's haire, who suffered for his prince August 10th 1746'. His prince was Bonnie Prince Charlie (his brother was the prince's tutor), and Uncle Frank was eventually hanged, drawn and quartered for his part in trying to restore a Catholic monarch to Britain. For many years my family kept Uncle Frank's severed head in a basket and passed it round after dinner.

So when I hear people such as the 22-year-old accountant Mohammed Abdullah from Luton saying, 'Our religious duty comes before everything else', it has a certain resonance. Of course, Mr Abdullah's religious and social history is entirely different from mine. Since Charles Martel's victory at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 - a battle that spared my family and the rest of the people on these islands the prospect of Christian martyrdom in the 8th century - Islam and Christianity have gone their separate ways. Had that battle been lost, as Gibbon tells us, 'the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mohammed'.

In the event it took the crisis precipitated by Henry VIII to set the English the ultimate test. When the Christian schism came, martyrs were, of course, claimed on both sides. Many, for example the Norfolks, cannily swayed with the wind. They were well rewarded. Families such as mine, who stuck willy-nilly to their guns, were derided as misguided fundies, traitors who were quite out of step with the more doctrinally enlightened and modern times in which they were living.

My family remains in many ways defined by its history. So, when I hear adjectives that once would have applied to us being applied now to keen young Muslims, it is impossible not to feel a certain frisson.

Moreover, I have found myself wondering if I, despite the recusant blood running through my veins, would rise, like 26-year-old Abu Yahya from Plaistow, to the challenge of defending my religion if called to do so. Would you? To push this question even further, if we were invaded by an Islamic state, would you, in order to save your life and the lives of your children, bow your head and perform the Salat if told to do so? Is not the fact that Muslims find this question (with appropriate reversals) easier to answer than Christians rather shocking?

It is perfectly true that Christians are specifically forbidden to seek martyrdom, something that caused Sir Thomas More mental agonies when awaiting his inevitable execution. But there is a difference between seeking martyrdom and accepting death. The 11 September hijackers (or the ones who knew the game plan) and the Muslims who are now clamouring to suffer in the service of Allah would not qualify for martyrdom under Christian definitions. Christians believe that seeking martyrdom is a wicked thing since it denotes the sin of pride.

But it is not fear of the sin of pride that would stop the British being martyrs now; it is the sin of indifference. Moreover, I have a suspicion that, faced with the threat 'convert or die', the instincts of even Catholic and Anglican bishops would be to compromise.

Since Vatican II, Catholics could certainly do so. Indeed, some commentators, such as the French academician Jean Guitton, appear to believe that Catholicism has no specific doctrine to advance; it should merely assist in deepening individual perceptions of God. The days of exclusivity are gone. What all contemporary Christians should be working towards is a relativist interpretation of religion in which the form of your worship matters less than the depth of your spiritual experience. In times in which, according to the Vatican II Decree on Missions, Ad Gentes, 'nova exsurgit humanitatis conditio', Christians should play down uniqueness.

I think it was this new emphasis on syncretism that inspired Cardinal Lustiger, then Archbishop of Paris, to declare in 1981, 'I am a Jew. For me the two religions are one.' He was, naturally, immediately contradicted by the Chief Rabbi, but you cannot say that the cardinal was not trying. Who knows what Monsignor Georges Darboy, one of his predecessors in the archiepiscopal chair would have thought? It is little more than a century since his martyrdom in the Paris commune.

And where does this kind of thinking leave me and my fundamentalist sympathies? Out of kilter, it seems, with the Christian world. For, while I have no wish to be martyred or to engage in religious wars, it seems an enviable thing to have something beyond worldly considerations for which you would be prepared to lay down your life.

Of course, some of those young men rushing off to Afghanistan are full of nonsense. Of course, some are using Islam as a peg on which to hang rather less noble ambitions than to die for Allah's sake. But Islam has retained something that Christianity has lost: an ability to summon people to its support and not have them ask, 'What on earth for?'

Some people may feel that what I deem a loss is actually Christianity's gain; that indifference is better than fundamentalism. But, as I watch the Abduls and Aftabs go to meet their fates, I think about John Towneley and Uncle Frank. It is probably a treasonable thought, but it may be that, although I disagree with the causes that would-be Muslim martyrs are espousing, in the fibre of my being I have more in common with them than with many of my apparently more sophisticated friends and neighbours.

[RadioAstronomer]

Not sure it much matters. Dead is dead. No thoughts, no self awareness, just like before you were born. This universe has been here 15 billion years or so, and we were not aware of that time span. I personally think it will be the same when the neural pathways in the brain cease functioning, no awareness ever again of anything, even that you were here once.

[philosofy123]

Early Christians died for their faith. Millions of other Christians in Moslem countries have died, and still are dying for their faith. Lokk at Sudan for example, where there are more than a million Christian myrters taking place recently. Us in the west did not have to face persecution and systematic tormentation by others because we are the majority. Therefore our attitude toward our Christianity is not with great zalot. An American girl, for example will think nothing of dating a moslem guy. She would never think of asking him to be a Christian; but he will INSIST that she become Moslem. Typically she, and friends and family don't consider that the end of the world! A Christian girl and her family living in an Arab country, would think it is the end of the world if a girl give up her religeon. We are just too soft!

[in the Arena]

The author just doesn't seem to get the point.

The Islamic fundamentalists are happy to die for their faith. The problem is, they want everyone else to die for their faith too.

While I'm more than happy to let people die for their faith, I'm not willing to die for someone else's faith, nor do I want them to die for mine.

When the moment of truth is upon me I pray I have the courage to rise to the challenge and know with confidence that I have chosen the right path.

That moment will not be upon me until I have exhausted all means available to return my enemy to dust.

[Dataman]

Sounds like a description of equals to me.

GW and I are equals. That doesn't make me the president.

And you don't believe it when the scriptures say that "we shall be like Him" at that time. Fine.

I am like my mother. That doesn't make me female. I am also like my father. That doesn't make me my father. Since God is spirit, and we will be spirit, we will be like Him.

If the scriptures really were as complete as you say they are, there would be no disagreements as to how it should be interpreted.

Your statement is a non sequitur. And deny, if you wish, that Mormonism is not sectarian. They are always fighting and splitting, especially when it comes to polygamy.

[CubicleGuy]

Since God is spirit, and we will be spirit, we will be like Him.

We will be spirit? I assume that when I die, the conscious part of me that will continue to exist will be a spirit. If I'm still a spirit after the resurrection, then what's the point of a resurrection? Romans 6:5 (and 8:11 and 1st Corinthians 6:14 and practically all of 1st Corinthians 15) says our resurrection will be like Christ's (you do agree, don't you, that Christ was physically resurrected?). This, to me, says it, too, will be a physical resurrection. If we're going to end up as spirits, then why did God bother creating a physical universe at all? Why go to all the trouble of arranging for us to live on a physical planet, give us physical bodies and teach about a physical resurrection if at the end of it all, we don't have physical bodies? What's the point of the whole earthly physical experience? Are you saying that spirits are limited in some way so that physical bodies are necessary, but only temporarily? What was the point of Jesus' physical resurrection? "Handle me and see,..."

And since you agree that "we will be like Him", if we do become physically resurrected (which is what the scriptures seem to indicate), and God is just a spirit, that doesn't seem to be very much like Him at all.

Did Christ just ditch His body at the end of the 40-day period during which He was among the disciples after the resurrection? And speaking of that 40-day period, why is there no record in the Bible of what He taught during that time period? Did He not teach during that time period? Or were the teachings of such little worth that nobody thought they were worth writing down? He came back to be with the saints for 40 days and nothing important occurred during that time?

Or is the Bible silent on the topic because the teachings were sacred and reserved to a select few and not to be taught openly?

[RadioAstronomer]

I disagree, Check post #221. This is what I truly think happens at the point of death.

[CubicleGuy]

Are you familiar with Christ's parable about Lazarus and the rich man (Luke, chapter 16)? You can say it's just a parable, but I don't think that Christ would teach a falsehood regarding the current state of those who have passed away (they are portrayed as being conscious of their surroundings and able to communicate with other "dead" spirits) in order to make a point about being nice to others while still in this life.

Furthermore, there is a mention in the parable about a "great gulf" between the rich man and Lazarus in the afterlife which is completely unimportant to the moral of the story, and would seemingly serve no purpose in its mention outside of relating a truth about the afterlife.

[CubicleGuy]

Good luck on working your way to "Godhood".

And good luck to you, too.

Just because your particular brand of Christianity doesn't believe in it or teach it, it doesn't change the end purpose of our creation. Some churches appear to be quite happy not knowing what the purpose of life is, and are willing to settle for being surprised at the end. The LDS are happy to receive further light and knowledge, even if it has to be parceled out a line here and a line there.

[RadioAstronomer]

Parable yes! Do I think there is a personal afterlife with us being self aware. Not a chance. We are the end product of 4 (or so) billion years of evolution. Do any of the organisms that was alive before us also retain their identities in an afterlife? What about the early hominids, do they?

[PatrickHenry]

Do I think there is a personal afterlife with us being self aware. Not a chance.

There are loads of people for whom the promise of an afterlife is the principle factor in their thinking. They say that without the afterlife, this life is without meaning. Such people would find your thinking incomprehensible. How would you respond to them?

[RadioAstronomer]

This is a free country and we are allowed to worship and retain our beliefs. I have no problem with that bellief system, I just don't share it. Heck, I am probably wrong anyway. :) At least I fervently hope so. It is a disquieting thought for a self aware entity to relalize that its selfawareness is only a temporary condition.

[CCWoody]

The excerpt I posted addressed the question of enduring to the end. If you endure to the end, you retain your salvation; if you don't endure to the end, you lose it.

I never recall asking the question. I do recall posting scripture to you that expressly states that it is the will of Almighty God that all of His elected saints will be preserved forever. You ignore it and you continue to ignore it. You dance around and never address the scripture directly. Therefore, I can cast aside everything that you say as just more heresy. But, if you so choose to try and address the scriptures directly, here are a few of them I quoted:

No man can come to Me unless the Father who hath sent Me draw him; and I will raise him up at the Last Day.

All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me, and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.

And this is the Father's will who hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the Last Day.

Election is determined by the Father. No man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him to the Son. This clearly demonstrates the Depravity of man. He does not even possess the ability to come to Christ on his own. All that the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son. This clearly shows that all those and only those chosen for salvation by God will be saved. It is the express will of God the Father that the Son lose nothing that He has given the Son. It is the express will of God the Father that all of these saints be raised up at the Last Day. This clearly shows the preserving power of God so that not one single chosen one will be lost.

However, this is all really meaningless to you anyway as the LDS church heresy claims that almost everybody will ultimately be saved after spending some time in hell to pay for their own sins. Heresy that is flatly denied by the scripture, including the verses I have quoted above.

Simple as that. You want to believe that once you get on the train, the game is over.

No, as the scriptures prove you wrong. And, once a saint gets on the train the persecution starts. I have quoted this scripture to you as well. Opps!

Your viewpoint of these people who fail to endure to the end is that they're just not "the elect", so they weren't going to go to heaven anyway. You claim that they don't endure to the end because they're not elect; I claim that they're not elect because they don't endure to the end. You negate free will, I affirm it.

What a weak argument. The scriptures again prove you wrong as it is not my viewpoint, but the Word of God:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

You negate the Sovereignty of God. I do not. I also affirm free will. I just understand what man freely wills to do. You don't. You also cannot explain this (Remember the handicap response):

As it is written, There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

A natural Man, acting by God's Permission, will:

NEVER seek God (because No Man naturally seeks God, Romans 3); NEVER do good (because the Doing of Good is not present in his native Wants, Romans 7); NEVER perform any God-pleasing action whatsoever (Because he never wants to please God, Romans 8); and NEVER even understand what he ought to do (because he cannot even understand the idea of doing anything God-pleasing, 1 Corinthians 2).

[CCWoody]

And the marvelous thing about the scriptures is that they can be interpreted to show that we're both right. Not that we both are right, but because the scriptures really are not complete, a human interpretation of the scriptures is never conclusive one way or the other. If the scriptures really were as complete as you say they are, there would be no disagreements as to how it should be interpreted.

Scriptures cannot be interpreted to show that we are both right unless you butcher the Bible. I read the complete scriptures and am able to understand what I read. A very good external evidence of salvation is the ability to read and understand what the Bible does say.

You claim that the spirit of God has told you that you really are one of the elect, I claim that the spirit of God has told me that Joseph Smith didn't make up the Book of Mormon out of his head. You claim that God doesn't speak to man anymore, because the scriptures say it all; I claim that there has never been a period of time where there have been righteous people on the earth when God didn't speak to them by calling prophets to speak for Him.

I claim much more than the Spirit bearing witness that I am a child of God. FYI, Joseph Smith didn't make up the Book of Mormon out of his head; he had help from Satan. Behold the words of Satan: I will be like the Most High. Maintain your course and you will join him in the lowest depths of the Pit.

And I do not claim that God doesn't speak to man anymore. He speaks to me all the time. I do affirm that prophets walk the earth today. Sad that you wouldn't know one if he was speaking to you.

… you claim that at a certain point in time, He gave us a Book that has everything we need in it, so that He wouldn't have to bother speaking to us any more.

No I don't. True enough that the Bible is the complete Book of Special Revelation, but His voice can be heard loud and clear.

External evidence? Like what, a Wonka Golden Ticket that you have in your possesion that grants you entrance to the Pearly Gates at some point in time?

That's it, speak evil of what you don't even understand. Why boast in your mischief, O mighty man?

No, I don't think I'd be expecting anything but internal faith evidence. That's all any of us can go on.

Wrong. Only a fool depends on what is in his heart. The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?

O Lord my God, Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing; Thou hast put off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, to the end that my glory may sing praise to Thee and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto Thee for ever.

Your words to me are Faithful and True. I cherish them all. Sweeter than honey to my mouth are Your words to my taste. You have caused me to have understanding and I delight in them. Direct my steps by Your word, and let no iniquity have dominion over me.

You will put away the wicked from the earth. You will break the teeth of those who speak evil of You. Therefore, I love Your testimonies. My flesh trembles for fear of You and I am on my face. When shall I come again and appear before God?

Faithfully shall I wait upon You, O God.

[Hank Rearden]

I believe I'll have another beer. Would I die for that? Uhmmmm . . . . . . no.

[CCWoody]

Not sure it much matters. Dead is dead. No thoughts, no self awareness, just like before you were born. This universe has been here 15 billion years or so, and we were not aware of that time span. I personally think it will be the same when the neural pathways in the brain cease functioning, no awareness ever again of anything, even that you were here once.

Shouldn't you do everything possible to make sure that it doesn't matter? If there is no Resurrection of the dead in Christ, then you should eat and drink, for tomorrow you die. Do not worry about us who are to be most pityied of all the earth.

[CCWoody]

Or is the Bible silent on the topic because the teachings were sacred and reserved to a select few and not to be taught openly?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[RadioAstronomer]

I totaly disagree with that statement. I love people and helping people. I'm a big marshmallow inside. :) The funny thing is I do believe in God. I just don't think this little tiny dust speck (Me) will continue after death. Why should it?

[CCWoody]

This is a free country and we are allowed to worship and retain our beliefs. I have no problem with that bellief system, I just don't share it. Heck, I am probably wrong anyway. :) At least I fervently hope so. It is a disquieting thought for a self aware entity to relalize that its selfawareness is only a temporary condition.

Kinda makes the whole exercise seem pathetic, doesn't it. BTW, if you are wrong, you will spend an eternity in torment so you should either repent and fall upon your face before your Creator or decide that are really are right. There can be no "hedging" of your bet with eternity.