Trivial Pursuits

Note: The link is a reference story about a hoax perpetrated on the world press.

Martyrdom versus Fanaticism

Often times, especially in the popular media, there is a peculiar lack of editorial accountability for the use of the English language, particularly where a definition or term is applied in a story where it absolutely does not fit. One of the regular verbalisms of note is the use of the term "martyr" as a description for an act of intentional terrorism by political extremists who violently enter eternity in a billion bits, having taken a number of unwilling victims along with them through a suicide bombing.

There is (or at least there should be) a clear distinction drawn between a martyr and a religious (or political) fanatic. Unfortunately, when a repetitive term or phrase appears in print and continues to be used without challenge or correction, it tends to be become accepted as fact. A grammatical faux pas among the world press was brought to light on May 11, 2009, by an Irish college student who had slipped an erroneous quote into the Internet dictionary called Wikipedia, which he attributed to a deceased French composer. Several respected news agencies around the world took the quote without verifying its veracity and attributed it to the dead composer. Hence the sage warning, "don't believe everything you read."

Martyrdom is an extremely difficult and costly personal sacrifice (sacrifice being the crucial term) of oneself based upon deeply held religious beliefs. Fanaticism, on the other hand, is a behavior-based response which generally expresses itself in uncritical devotion to a person, thing, or (most often) a deity. In the most basic understanding of each term, a martyr suffers for the exercise of faith at the hands of others, while others suffer at the hands of a fanatic (in the exercise of faith.)

The first martyr of the early Christian Church is found in the New Testament Book of Acts, Chapter 7. There we find a religious man, Stephen, sharing his new found faith before a group of other religious men (the Jewish Sanhedrin.) The record reflects a distinction between the response of Stephen and the reaction of the Sanhedrin, clearly demonstrating a martyr (Stephen) and a group of fanatics (the Sanhedrin.) In Acts 7:51-60 (NIV), we observe the following:

'"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.'

In the New Testament account of Stephen, he is put to death by an angry mob (religious fanatics) for espousing his personal religious beliefs. In a ground swell of indignant anger and protest, the religious men of the Sanhedrin grab Stephen and violently put him to death through a fanatical demonstration and exercise of their religious beliefs. Notice that Stephen did not do anything to hasten his death other than to express his faith before others. However, the Sanhedrin lashed out in violence and persecuted Stephen through fanatical adherence to their religious beliefs.

In the Middle East, especially in Iraq, press accounts often (and erroneously) refer to suicide-bombers as "martyrs." One must question whether or not willfully entering a bus with a bomb strapped to one's body and detonating the same resembles martyrdom or fanaticism. Certainly, one would be hard pressed to argue anyone aboard the exploded bus (other than the bomber) was a willing participant in the exercise of faith. In the same way, when a news account from the same region tells a story of a missionary being singled out and murdered by angry followers of a different religion, it begs the question why the press almost never refers to the the murdered missionary as a martyr.

It may seem like a trivial matter in a world full of information flying from thousands of sources through the convention of the press. But the truth matters if words are to mean anything. Much like a spoken promise, such a promise is only as good as the one who utters and honors the same. Otherwise, the promise is worthless and the words upon which it was conveyed are trivialized. The pursuit of truth should never be trivialized for the sake of expediency. Perhaps our politicians would choose their words more carefully, if we were actually listening to what words they used.


(copyright 2009, Gregory Allen Doyle)