PART 1
THE MEANING AND MAGNITUDE
OF CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION
1
TOWARD A DEFINITION
OF CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION AND MARTYRDOM
A manâs enemies will be the members of his household.
(Matt. 10:36)
What do we mean when we say that Christians everywhere will suffer persecution? In Kentucky, a high school baseball player was dismissed from his team for missing practices on Sundays. Was he persecuted for being a Christian? In war-torn Sudan, Muslims from the north razed villages where Christians and animists once lived. Were those Christians suffering persecution? In Detroit, a group of street preachers were struck with rocks and bottles and harassed by police while trying to witness at a Muslim event. Were they persecuted? Christian lawyers like Gao Zhisheng fighting against the abuse of human rights in China have been imprisoned and tortured. Should their suffering be termed âpersecutionâ?
Tryon Edwards, a great-grandson of Jonathan Edwards, once asserted, âMost controversies would soon be ended, if those engaged in them would first accurately define their terms, and then adhere to their definitions.â1 Edwards might have been too optimistic about the end of controversy, but he was right to note the power that definitions have to diffuse it. A trip to the local library or bookstore proves our faith in the power of definitions.
The Power of Definitions
Consider the prevalence of English dictionaries. My local bookstore sells dictionaries for synonyms, war terms, business terms, legal terms, theological terms, and psychological terms. An almost endless stream of dictionaries flows out of an ocean of words. These words break upon the pages of our literature and land upon our minds, empowering creative thinking. Our thoughts actually ride upon a surf of words.
But words â like waves â do not always come as docile tides rolling in on a white sand shore. Rather, words break upon our ears and crash into our minds, often provoking crises. As the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once declared, âWords are loaded pistols.â2 Defining words, then, can be a dangerous game. Words are, in fact, the means by which reality takes (and keeps) its shape. Consider, for example, how the Nazis defined âtreasonâ and âloyaltyâ for Germans in the 1940s â and consider the implications for Germany and the world!
In our own history, the word âpersonâ has suffered terrible damage. In the nineteenth century, the word excluded a race of human beings who were subsequently bought and sold as slaves; those humans suffered the excruciating consequences of a horrible definition. Today, the word âpersonâ excludes human babies developing in the womb, and the result causes untold pain and suffering for men and women in the aftermath of abortions â not to mention the millions of deaths of unborn babies. Subtle changes in the definitions of words can have cataclysmic long-term effects for us because definitions are significant.
Here we return to Edwardsâs point. Definitions do provide clarity and can lead to unity, but that unity does not always equate with what is good. Germany in 1942 and the South in 1840 were, for the most part, united in their definitions of key terms. (Thankfully, both of those thought-systems were eventually overthrown.) Here is why I said that Edwards was too optimistic about definitions ending controversy. Definitions of âtreasonâ were clear in Nazi Germany. The definitions of words like âslaveâ and âfreeâ were clear in the South. And war was the necessary outcome in each case. Often, clear definitions fuel controversy. Consider the definition of marriage.
The generally accepted evangelical definition of âmarriageâ â one man with one woman for a lifetime â is both perfectly clear and undeniably controversial. Paul Nyquist warns Christians concerning the new definition of marriage, saying, âItâs impossible to overstate the impact of the abandonment of biblical marriage.â3 Nyquistâs point is that the convenience of Christian living in America has been lost. If Nyquist is correct, then Christians must become ever more familiar with definitions of two key terms: âpersecutionâ and âmarriage.â
Christians must define these two words clearly, as the two appear destined to remain hitched for decades. The term âmarriageâ is obviously undergoing a redefinition in our culture. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has fallen on notoriously difficult times. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of recognizing gay marriage in the Obergfell v. Hodges decision, same-sex unions became legal in all fifty states. What the limits are to the new definition of marriage, no one knows. After a federal judge overturned Utahâs ban of polygamous marriages, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is now deciding the famous âSister Wivesâ case which condones group marriage.4 In other states, relatives are seeking to define marriage as consenting adults â demanding freedom from the former restraint against incestuous relationships.
Because marriage is now redefined, Christians will be tested on whether we believe our own definitions. Do we as Christians believe Godâs monogamous design for heterosexual marriage? Will Christians stand on these convictions? What if group marriages, gay marriages, or even bestial marriages become matters of civil rights? Will Christians remain steadfast in their biblical convictions? Will we pay the price in persecution? What if a church loses its tax-exempt status as a result of monogamous marriage commitments? What if pastors are convicted of civil rights crimes â or hate crimes â and sent to jail for refusing to marry a small group of lovers?
Persecution may flow freely from the deluge of court decisions against traditional marriage. Already, Christian businesses have been shuttered for refusing to participate in gay wedding ceremonies. Surely, Christian churches and ministries will soon be in jeopardy.5 Thus, Christians need adequate definitions of âmarriageâ and âpersecutionâ so that we can understand what and why we are suffering â and have the right attitude and the right response to our suffering. We must, however, be careful with our definitions.
Returning to Sartreâs point â that words are loaded pistols â we must think through the consequences of how we use the term âpersecution.â The definition we offer will shape Christian values and Christian practice. Those who suffer persecution are highly esteemed by the church â as they should be. In the spirit of Paulâs admonition to imitate him the way he imitates Christ (2 Cor. 4:11), Christians have sought to imitate (and sometimes even venerate in an almost worshipful manner) those martyred for the faith. Christians watch and mimic the manners in which other Christians face persecution. Why? One reason is so they might imitate them in the way that Stephen, the first martyr after Christ, imitated his Lord through persecution. Christian moral character is shaped by how we define words like âpersecutionâ and âmartyr.â As Christians, we need to know how to identify those among us who truly suffer persecution.
But hereâs the problem: persecution means many things to many different people. One recent article stated that wild birds were being persecuted in northern England.6 Whatever the journalist covering bird crime in Great Britain meant by his use of the term, the Christian surely must understand it in a radically different way. Both Christians and birds of prey can be hunted and even threatened with extinction. Both Christians and wild birds can also give glory to God, but Christians alone are victimized explicitly on account of witnessing to their Creatorâs glory. Persecuting birds is not the same as persecuting Christians.
So, in the midst of our cultural confusion about marriage and with a dizzying array of popular definitions of persecution â covering everything from the birds of Great Britain to suicide bombers in the Middle East â Christians need clarity. What do we mean when we speak about Christian persecution today? A small controversy has erupted among theologians and missiologists attempting to answer this question.
Who Are the Persecuted?
Christians are not in agreement on the number of believers suffering persecution around the world. One recent news article reported that as many as 10 million Christians suffer persecution each year. While 10 million is a large number, it is a significantly small percentage of the more than 2 billion people on earth who claim to be Christians. Considering that the apostle Paul promised persecution to all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:12), shouldnât the number be greater? Whether great or small, the number is difficult to pinpoint.
In the summer of 2013, Christianity Today published an article explaining why Christians have difficulty tallying numbers for persecution and martyrdom.7 Groups like the Center for the Study of Global Christianity report that there are more than 100,000 martyrdoms per year,8 while other groups such as Open Doors claim a more modest 1,200 martyrs per year. The problem is obvious. One figure puts the number of martyrs 83 times greater than the other. Why canât we agree on such a significant matter of Christian interest? The problem isnât with our math as much as it is with our definitions. Our lack of specificity is rooted in our lack of clearly defined terms. Until we can define âmartyrâ adequately, we cannot hope to count the number of martyrs accurately.
Christian leaders have been pleading for better definitions of âpersecutionâ and âmartyrdomâ for decades. In 1974, the International Congress for World Evangelization (the Lausanne Congress) met to strategize the fulfillment of Christâs commission in Matthew 28:18â20. The Lausanne Congress was sober-minded enough to recognize that making disciples among all tribes and nations would lead to an increase in persecution: not all authorities are fond of Christianity! Thus, Lausanne called for increased study in the areas of Christian suffering â particularly in understanding what it means to suffer for Christâs sake. Some thirty years later, in 2004, the Lausanne Congress published as a follow-up an occasional paper titled âThe Persecuted Church,â which reiterated, âThere is clearly a need for deeper theological reflection on the issues pertaining to suffering, persecution, martyrdom, religious freedom, and human rights, and an appropriate Christian response.â9
Now, more than ten years beyond Lausanneâs occasional paper, the need for definition is only more acute. In reference to the wildly disparate numbers relating to martyrdom, the Christianity Today article notes, âMuch of the discrepancy hinges on how researchers define martyr, and how closely they double-check each death.â10 Obviously, the first aspect of this diagnosis relates to the difficulty of defining âpersecutionâ and âmartyrdom,â but even the second aspect depends on the very same thing. What would be the purpose of double-checking each death if it were not to discover whether the victim was actually a martyr? And how is one to determine whether a victim should be called a martyr without first understanding whether that person suffered persecution on account of Christ? It seems mandatory to build the definition of âmartyrâ on the logically prior foundation of the meaning of âpersecution.â
Researchers have been plagued by the question of whether or not a Christianâs death was martyrdom. But to answer that question sufficiently, we must know if this person was persecuted on account of Christ. Instead of asking, âDid she die a martyrâs death?â we should ask, âWas it persecution for Christâs sake that led to her death?â There is a degree of specificity that exists in the latter question; yet such a question still depends on our ability to define âpersecution on account of Christâ sufficiently.
Toward a Definition
So, what is persecution on account of Christ? Nik Ripkenâs succinct definition gets right to the point: Christian persecution is âa negative reaction to the incarnate presence of Jesus.â11 Later chapters in this book put more flesh on this barebones definition. Already, this simple definition helps because it separates persecution from many other forms of suffering.
Consider the kinds of suffering persecution is not.12 Human beings suffer for many reasons. Because we are in the world, we as Christians suffer as the rest of the world suffers. In 1976, an earthquake struck China and killed more than 250,000 people, including atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians. The so-called Christmas Tsunami of 2004 killed in excess of 280,000 people of varying faiths along the coast of Indonesia. And even in America, when heart disease strikes one of the 600,000 who will die from it this year, it will not first determine whether its victim is Christian. Christians, like all human beings, suffer from the frailties of the human condition: famine, disease, droughts, floods, and war.
None of this suffering is rightly called persecution. When we speak of Christian persecution, we are moving beyond suffering as Christians to a very specific form of suffering â suffering because we are Christian. Ripkenâs definition makes that plain. Christian suffering ...