« Follow-up to "What is an evangelical"� |
Main
| Safety and liberty »
Denial or Survival?
I'd like to open up a new topic of discussion here. I'm very intereste in what othes have to say.
The wonderful news that the Fox News reporter and cameraman were released yesterday brought up a question that has been on my mind and was the first topic of conversation in the office this morning. Their captors forced them to "convert" to Islam on camera. Steve Centanni said they did it because their captors has guns. It was what was necessary to survive. He also seemed to indicate that the request was absurd because it obviously meant nothing coming from force.
This brings home the theoretical Sunday School question (not to be confused with a trivial question): Is it permissible for a Christian to profess another faith at the point of a gun? Isn't that tantamount to denying Christ?
My questions are by no means a criticism of the two men because I have no reason to believe they're Christians. It's also very difficult to imagine being in their circumstances. But the right thing to do is not the same thing as the hard thing to imagine. What is the right thing for a Christian to do under those circumstances? I'll confess I'm a bit torn, though the preponderance of my sense is that it would be wrong and tantamount to denying Christ. I know what I've answered in Sunday School - no! But are there mitigating circumstances? I think not, but here's why I'm somewhat torn.
As Centanni intimated, such a "conversion" would obviously not be taken seriously by most people so would it amount to denying Christ? On the other hand, many Muslims would probably take it seriously and interpret it as denying Christ. If I refused their demand and was killed, no one beyond that room would ever know the reason for my death and it wouldn't be a witness. On the other hand, it would be a witness to the captors and hopefully a powerful one. Given the "conversion" would be a sham, is it better to cooperate and try to survive the situation, and later on camera reiterate my commitment to Christ? On the other hand, it is forsaking my commitment to Christ and claiming adherence to a false religion, and isn't my commitment to Christ worth the loss of my life? I think so, and that's why I think I should not cooperate with the captors.
And yet, I just can't get over the sham of such a conversion. What do you think? Some of you may think less of me for even wresting with what to do.
On a related thought, for the vast majority of Christianity's history the appeal for conversion is a result of persuasion and example, not force. But the Inquisition and other rare events are glaring, horrible exceptions contrary to Scripture. I've always wondered why anyone who does such a thing thinks they're getting a real conversion. What did the inquisitors and the Muslim captors last week think they were accomplishing? It's silly and tragic.
I'm so glad you wrote this because I was thinking the same things this morning and asking myself what I would do, should do, in ths same situation.
Peter and Stephen come to mind as the closest parallels, Peter on the negative side, denying his relationship with Christ when he was afraid for his life, Stephen on the positive refusing to deny Christ though it cost him his life. We learn important lessons from both: Christ extends enough grace to cover our betrayals; our faith may cost us more than we realize when we first enter in.
I think the point about a witness to our faith by our actions, by refusing to deny Christ, is important. I think of Cassie Bernal, the young woman murdered in the Columbine school killings who refused to deny Christ. Those sorts of actions do speak loudly and clearly about our faith. And in a confrontation with Islam, which is increasingly in love with martyrdom, it may be there is no effective witness to Christ except through an unwavering readiness to put one's life on the line before denying what we know to be true: that Christ is Lord.
I would hope I might have the courage of my convictions if faced with this in real life.
I am certain that we are all called never to deny Christ, even to the point of martyrdom. I hope that if I were ever in that position, I would stand firm, but as Charlie points out, even Peter denied Christ, and so we can see that even that can be forgiven.
I've always wondered why anyone who does such a thing thinks they're getting a real conversion. What did the inquisitors and the Muslim captors last week think they were accomplishing?
To a lot of Mohammadans, it does count. At the least, it demonstrates to them that many Westerners do not have the courage of their convictions, and they have a video to prove it.
I prefer the example of Fabrizio Quattrocchi, who when he was about to be shot by his captors in Iraq, pulled off his hood and tried to stand up, shouting "Now I'll show you how an Italian dies!"
Al Jazeera refused to show this video because it was "too gruesome".
Right.
With the things we hear on the news (from Columbine to kidnappings in the Middle East) I think many of us have considered what we would do if placed in these kinds of situations.
At gunpoint, would we be willing to stand up for our faith?
Though requiring a public answer, the question, I think, is a deeply personal one. Only the one facing the situation would know whether it demands that he or she stand up for Christ (if it’s the real thing). For many of us, all such challenges require an unequivocal response (on principle). But I think we also can think of situations where the more Christ-like thing to do would be to say that we deny Christ if necessary to avoid some greater harm. For example, what if it was not your life, but the life of your (unsaved) family on the line? Or the lives of countless others (say, because you’re involved in some underground operation)?
These kinds of situations have little to do with true conversions. One can deny Christ publicly, and yet have a deeply-held faith. One’s faith may be shaken by the experience, but nothing that cannot be restored by grace and repentance. It’s not about true conversions, it’s about political, physical, and psychological control. One group asserting it’s will over another—which is accomplished by these public denials, regardless of the victim’s inward faith.
That is not to say that we should not stand up for Christ. We want to make the most of every opportunity to advance the kingdom of God because we know that many are influenced by how Christians respond under pressure. But we should not be so quick to judge (or approve of) others, not having stood in their shoes.
I think the answer is all tied into the word and concept "martyr".
There are two points to how people react to that, the one is indisputable:whether we should stay faithful to the end in face of whatever cost or challenge... the other is " are we able? We doubt ourselves, and history has shown that there were those who wavered.
But to the first question I believe the answer is simple and sure.
Are the Muslims to be any more feared than the Romans of the first century? Here is a portion of the history of Justin Martyr and others:
"Rusticus the prefect said, "Unless ye obey, ye shall be mercilessly punished." Justin said, "Through prayer we can be saved on account of our Lord Jesus Christ, even when we have been punished,(2) because this shall become to us salvation and confidence at the more fearful and universal judgment-seat of our Lord and Saviour." Thus also said the other martyrs: "Do what you will, for we are Christians, and do not sacrifice to idols."
CHAP. V.--SENTENCE PRONOUNCED AND EXECUTED.
Rusticus the prefect pronounced sentence, saying, "Let those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to yield to the command of the emperor be scourged,(3) and led away to suffer the punishment of decapitation, according to the laws." The holy martyrs having glorified God, and having gone forth to the accustomed place, were beheaded, and perfected their testimony in the confession of the Saviour."
~http://forerunner.com/churchfathers/X0034_30._MARTYRDOM_OF_HOL.html
I personally believe that God gives grace to endure such tribulations. In no way would I criticise or expect anything like this from anyone except devoted Christians. But from them, us, I believe we should expect this as our manner of answer in such situations. By God's grace. I think it is something we ready for and move toward every day in the small choices we make.
ps.... additionally I think coercion is the earmark of worldly power systems, religious or otherwise.
I've heard unbelievers raise issues with Old Testament accounts of the establishment of Israel. In Christianity we make the distinction based upon Christ's testimony, that ours is a spiritual Kingdom and established through other means than coercion. But can temporal powers exist without that method, physical coercion of some kind?
I suppose this is another way of asking whether it is possible to exist as a state without any sort of war or capital punishments in this present world?
Back to Islam... they are very much about establishing a physical state and being conquerors, not at all about the Christian idea of the inner state being of primary importance. I wonder at the wisdom of trying to overlay Christian standards upon Islam...just because both share status as religions.
I have felt that this is one great mistake that the West continually makes in dealing with Islamofascism ( I know how some hate that term... but if the shoe fits...).
This is looking at the situation with broad strokes in thread, but I think it is worthwhile to look more closely at the claims of Islam and decode what it is about, rather than keep viewing it through our Western filter.
Interesting discussion and I love the new team Intellectuelle has assembled. You're making good on the the promise that characterized the launch of this blog.
Here's a Wikipedia entry on the Donatist controversy that might be relevant in some ways to this discussion. The Donatists didn't want to relent and allow back in the Church those who recanted their faith during the persecutions of Diocletian. The Donatists said, "We suffered for the name of Jesus and you denied Jesus to spare yourself. You're not fit to have His name after you denied it."
This was one of the major controversies of Augustine's life. Read on....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatist
GL- you don't know how very encouraging that comment is at this time! And I would like to say that we who are board here recognize that we are only one leg of what propels the blog forward.... it is the richness of the discussion by commenters such as you that provide the other leg.
Your link to the Donatists was welcome, and I for one was unfamiliar with this history. I looked at it, and I can see both sides, really. Augustine was correct to uphold the authority of office, but there have always been qualifiers based upon the proven life of those who inhabit those offices in the Church. Paul's epistle to Titus makes that very clear.
While there should be forgiveness and a place for repentance, still, the punishment for treason in the temporal is more enforced than any idea of apostasy in the Church.
Ultimately it is the Lord at judgment who rules on this, but in the meantime, there ought to be some sense of fear ( as the book of Hebrews enjoins) to fall away from the truth of Christ and from the Living God.
These two things hold me in tension - and usually that means there is a balance to be found, that it isn't a matter of strictly one way or another.
I think of the accounts in the Foxes Book of Martyrs, and there were instances of those who lived faithful lives after initial failures of recanting the truth. It seems there should be rigorous standards such as we see in the Donatists, upholding of the doctrine of the authority of office as in Augustine, and place for individual restitution and restoration in the case of those with moral failure...such as was the majority opinion of the Church at the time of Donatism. All.
Maybe it is sidestepping, but there should be a way to syncretize all aspects of the question.
It also is telling that these people were harshly persecuted .... that merits some looking at.
I can see the argument for saving your own life in this situation, in the hope of bearing witness to others, and doing good in other ways, at some later date, but I think the right thing to do is follow Christ's command "let your yes mean yes and your no mean no" (the context was a rejection of taking oaths, but the point was surely that we should tell the truth so faithfully that no oaths would ever be considered necessary). Hence, as long as I believe that Mohammed was no prophet, the Koran not a holy book, and Islam a false religion, I couldn't say otherwise and be all right with my conscience.
"tell the truth ... faithfully "
That says it all to me, and remains as a thought to meditate upon.
To be a Faithful Witness... when struck in that stance it clears the question for me.
