This e-mail is sent only to a voluntary subscriber list. If you no longer wish to receive these weekly columns, send a blank e-mail (no
message) to [email protected]. Or write to me personally, [email protected]
Sunday February 29, 2015
Is dogma worth dying for?
By Jim Taylor
In the video, 21 men in orange jumpsuits paraded silently along a Mediterranean beach.
The men were members of the Coptic Christian Church, one of the oldest branches of Christianity. It claims
to have been founded in Alexandria by Mark, writer of the earliest Christian gospel. By most chronologies, the
Coptic Church pre-dates the first Christian communities established in Europe by Paul.
Each Copt was accompanied by a burly ISIS militant, dressed entirely in black, his identity completely
concealed behind a black hood.
Fortunately, the media chose not to show the 21 Copts being beheaded.
But I wonder what it feels like to know that your life will end in just minutes. To know that the next thing
you feel will be a knife slicing through your throat. To know that soon the clear waters of the Mediterranean will run
red with your blood.
Under those circumstances, would I consider the dogmas of my faith worth dying for?
Pope Francis diverged from his prepared text while addressing the Church of Scotland, last Sunday, to call
the murdered men “martyrs.” He said, “It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, or
Protestants… The martyrs belong to all Christians.”
Coptic Pope Tawadoros II officially recognized the 21 as martyrs, and assigned them a place in the Coptic
Orthodox Church’s calendar of saints.”
Involuntary sacrifice
“Martyr” is not a word we hear often these days. Technically, it means “witness” -- someone who is put to
death for loyalty to his (or her) religious convictions.
Suicide does not qualify – the death has to be involuntary, inflicted by an external authority. So the
Buddhist monks who immolated themselves in Vietnam were not martyrs, although they died for their convictions.
But Joan of Arc certainly was, burned at the stake as a 19-year-old. And William Tyndale, executed by
strangulation for translating the Bible into English. Thomas Cranmer, burned for supporting King Henry VIII’s
break with Rome. Jean de Brebeuf, priest to the Hurons, slaughtered by Iroquois raiders. And Oscar Romero,
assassinated while offering Mass in the Roman Catholic cathedral in San Salvador.
In common usage, “martyr” pairs with “Christian” – but not necessarily. Mahatma Gandhi was a martyr,
shot by a right-wing Hindu extremist. Socrates is considered a martyr, although not for religious reasons. Galileo,
however, was not a martyr, because he took the opportunity to recant and save his life.
Guilt by association
We’ll never know if ISIS gave the 21 Copts the opportunity to recant their faith. Probably not.
Nor would it have made any difference if they had been offered that opportunity. It would seem that the 21
Coptic Christians were not beheaded for their own beliefs, but for the institution they belonged to, however
distantly. It was guilt by association, nothing more.
As far as anyone knows, those 21 Copts did not publish cartoons ridiculing Mohammed. As a small
minority in an otherwise Islamic world, they have learned to be careful. So they would not have stood in Tahrir
Square to deny the existence of Allah. They would not have stormed a mosque and started shooting Muslims.
They were, in fact, probably no more overtly Christian than most of us.
Personally, I’m not sure that I would be willing to die for my faith. I suspect that like Galileo, I would
willingly bend my beliefs to avoid execution. I might risk death to protect people I love – perhaps even to protect
strangers threatened by fires, accidents, or violence – but would I die for the doctrine of the Trinity? For the Virgin
Birth? Probably not.
Arrogant assurance
Dogma, it seems to me, has been vastly over-valued in Christian history. One of my dictionaries offers two
definitions of dogma: “a principle or tenet laid down by the authority of the church” and “an arrogant declaration of
opinion.” I don’t see much difference between the two.
Only the church would be arrogant enough to require that certain non-negotiable teachings must be
accepted without question, whether or not they conflict with other realities.
Do Catholics lined up for a Costco cashier really care that blasphemy is a mortal sin, but shoplifting is
merely a criminal offence? Do Protestants really care whether they have two sacraments, or seven?
But the ISIS beheadings remind me again that individual beliefs are irrelevant. We’re so brainwashed by
individualism that we think can separate ourselves from the dogmas of the larger body.
The reactions of ISIS tell us we’re not. Outsiders see only what the nation as a whole, the community, or
the church, say and do. We’re judged by what we belong to.
And if we don’t like it, then the solution must be to change that nation, community, or church.
********************************************************
Copyright © 2014 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all
other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write [email protected]
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Okay, let’s be clear. In last week’s column, I was not claiming that “Boris” had the final truth about the Ukraine
conflict – only that his is a view we don’t get to hear.
The variety of reactions was, umm, interesting.
Someone identified only as b.gray seems to have confused me with Fox/Sun commentators Ezra Levant or Rush
Limbaugh. In three separate letters, he or she called the column “quite a reversal from your previous unsubstantiated
and unwarranted vitriol and demonizing of Putin and Russia…” and “Seeing as how you are starting to get a little
scared that your previous beliefs and opinions were so wrong and you had better cover your butt…” and we “Need
to get rid of the Fkn' Nazi sympathizers in this country...”
Steve Roney chose to argue with “Boris” about the present Ukrainian government: “This is nonsense. There was a
neo-Nazi element in the Maidan protests. Always small, they were crushed in the 2014 elections, and form no part
of the current Ukrainian government. Calling the Ukrainian government ‘Nazi’ is just disinformation. If there is
some genocide going on in the Ukraine, it has not been picked up by any international observers, nor in polls by
various institutions, including Pew Research, which consistently show a majority of inhabitants in all parts of
Ukraine favouring the current unitary Ukrainian state.
“On the other hand, it is vitally significant that the Russian Federation signed the Budapest Memorandum
in 1994, in which it, the US, and Britain agreed to guarantee the Ukraine’s current borders in return for the Ukraine
surrendering all its nuclear arms. Russia is in obvious and blatant violation of this treaty obligation since the
annexation of the Crimea. Even without it, annexing the territory of a neighbor, under whatever pretense, is not
permissible in international law.
“As international disputes go, there is no grey area here.”
On the other hand, Tom Watson wrote, “I had not previously contemplated the contention your Russian writer
'Boris' makes when he says that Gorbachev and Yeltsin almost destroyed the country, and cites Putin as the rebuilder. That certainly hasn't been the picture presented here in the west. Seemed that Gorbachev and Yeltsin,
especially Gorbachev, pulled our countries out of the Cold War period, and the former KGB agent Putin slowly
pulled us back into it.
“I have found it fascinating that almost immediately on the heels of the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi,
trouble started brewing in Crimea. The impression left was that Putin had used the Olympics as a means to shore up
Russia's credibility and then swiftly embarked upon incursions beyond Russia's borders. It seemed a pretty
opportunistic land grab. Was this the case, or was Putin actually, as Boris suggests, saving that area from disaster?
Which version of 'the truth' are we to believe?
“Truth seems to be a persistent casualty on many fronts these days. I wonder what kind of a genius it would
take to unspin the spin, and thus get somewhere close to truth.”
Isabel Gibson: “Thanks for this reminder that there are always at least two sides to every story. That's one reason
why it's so important to read widely, and talk to (and listen to) folks who do not share our opinions, or even our
worldview. It can be irritating and even painful - but it's necessary to understanding that no one has the whole truth.”
Hanny Kooyman picked up the issue of selective information: “For the longest time I haven't seen open and
straightforward journalism. From where I'm sitting I don't get to see what's really happening in the Ukraine. What
we call news is as you said 'filtered' as to what we are allowed to know. The 'Boris' letter [offers] a different point of
view -- right or wrong, who's to tell. With all the modern tools of communication, it would be so easy to let all of the
world know what is really happening, but we're mostly left in the dark.”
Marjorie Gibson connected two recent ssues: “In today's essay, as well as the one on assisted suicide, you are
tackling complicated, important, and emotional issues. My reaction to such difficult problems is to remember an old
adage: ‘Complicated, difficult issues always have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.’
“In the life experiences of most of us, the problem is to have access to enough reliable information so that
we can have a chance of making useful decisions.”
The discussion of the Supreme Court decision on assisted suicide continues. Frank Martens challenged Laurna
Tallman’s assumption (last week) that someone else could offer "sheer spiritual insight" into whether the relative
should be kept alive or allowed to die.
Frank continued, “My mother was 80, dying from renal cancer, hooked up top to bottom with everything
you could think of. All her six siblings were at her bedside. The doctor told us the situation, and asked us if he
should pull the plug. All except one daughter, the religious fanatic, said yes. Fortunately for our mother, she was
over-ruled. Years later this daughter died a terrible death of stomach cancer at the age of 67.”
David Shearman offered a closing word: “When I read both your column on assisted suicide and the comments it
provoked, my heart breaks.
“What I find most common in all the discussion is that most people base their response to this issue on a
singular or perhaps a very small number of experiences of death and dying and then extend the argument that
somehow their experience is normal.
“Guess what? It's not.
“As a pastor who is on the cusp of retirement after 36 years, I have been at many, many bedsides as people
have died and as they die. If there is one common experience, it is that every death is unique and no one of even
several experiences should ever be used as a way to guide personal decision-making or public policy. We do treat
people better than animals, and we have a right to demand better palliative care from our physicians.
“I also hope that people will take time to actually read the Supreme Court's decision. It's not long; about
145 paragraphs. It's easy to read. They write in simple, declarative sentences. There is a lot of legal footnoting to
wade through, and about 120 paragraphs of recounting of the Carter vs. Canada case and relevant case law on which
they built their decision, but the critical part is about nine paragraphs. If people read those nine paragraphs, there are
some important things which become clear.
“First, nothing changes. While the right to have assistance in taking one's own life is now present, that right
is suspended for 12 months to give parliament time to write appropriate legislation.
“Second, the decision recognizes that the right to assistance in dying is available under some very limited
and prescribed circumstances. The SCC only addresses this case, where the plaintiff has already died.
“Third, that act of assistance is not now a criminal act but a medical decision between a doctor and a
patient.
“Fourth, no physician can be compelled to give assistance if requested, based on the physician's
professional, moral or ethical beliefs.
“This is almost exactly the position the Supreme Court placed abortion in with regard to the Criminal Code
following Morganthaler vs. Canada.
“I strongly believe that this country needs a comprehensive palliative care strategy. That should be an issue
we raise in the next Federal election campaign….”
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com.
If you want to comment on something, send a message directly to me, at [email protected].
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or you can subscribe electronically by
sending a blank e-mail (no message) to [email protected]. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at
[email protected].
You can access several years of archived columns at http://edges.Canadahomepage.net.
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith.
To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly, at the address above, or send a note to [email protected]
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
If you know someone else who might like to receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to [email protected]. Or, if you
wish, forward them a copy of this column. But please put your name on it, so they don’t think I’m sending out spam.
Other sources worth pursuing:







Ralph Milton’s HymnSight webpage, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the
appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
David Keating’s “SeemslikeGod” page, www.seemslikegod.org;
Alan Reynold’s weekly musings, punningly titled “Reynolds Rap” -- [email protected]
Isobel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with
free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town are not particularly
religious, but they are fun; write [email protected] to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” – ruminations on various subjects, and
feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at [email protected]
***************************************