OF COURSE Martyrs Don't Work That Way

Artwork showing the apostle Peter. Image source.

[content note: religious persecution/ martyrdom]

I've been watching a YouTube series called "An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ", by Steve Shives (which I very much recommend to anyone who used to be an apologetics nerd, like me). In his video on chapter 14, Shives is talking about the apologetics argument that says the Resurrection must have happened because if the disciples were lying about witnessing the risen Jesus, they wouldn't have held on to that belief to the point of being martyrs- they wouldn't have "died for a lie." He says:

Well, the website "Debunking Christianity" has a really excellent article on this subject, on the "die for a lie" argument. ... And it brings up a very important question that Strobel and Moreland of course don't address here at all, and that is: What if the disciples were killed because of their Christianity, but they weren't given the opportunity to save themselves by recanting? This whole argument presupposes this choice that the disciples were given, that they were killed for their beliefs and that if they had only renounced Jesus, they would have been allowed to live. There's no reason to make that assumption, even if we go far enough to assume that their martyrdoms actually took place as believed by Christians. There's no reason to assume that they could have saved themselves by recanting or renouncing their testimony. 

And the article specifically mentions the execution of Peter, which according to tradition took place in the aftermath of the burning of Rome in the year AD 64. Emperor Nero blamed the fires on Christians and made them the fall guys, the scapegoats if you will, for the fire, and set into motion a campaign of persecution against Christians and it's during this persecution that it's traditionally believed that Peter was executed. 

But here's the key point: Peter was killed because he was a Christian, but he was killed because his Christian sect had been identified as a threat, not because of his beliefs. Whether Peter recanted his belief in Jesus or not would have made no difference, which means that the "die for a lie" argument does not apply at all to the martyrdom of Peter, who was the most celebrated of the disciples and whose supposed death via that inverted crucifixion is by far the best-known among Christians to this day.

And here's a section from that article he referenced, "Die for a Lie" won't Fly:

Imagine Peter leading a church service at that time, and Roman Soldiers bust in:

Soldier: All right. Who is in charge here?
*Everyone points to Peter*
Soldier: You, and your entire group here are charged with the crime of arson. You will be tried, found guilty, and executed, and not necessarily in that order.
Peter: But it is all a hoax. Jesus wasn’t physically resurrected. I don’t want to die for a lie.

Now, is the Soldier going to apologize for bothering Peter, and then leave, chuckling how he single-handedly eliminated Christianity? Of course not. He will proceed with his orders, and, regardless what Peter says, Peter will die. Yes, he is a martyr. Yes, he died for being a Christian.

This was basically what I always heard in church about being a martyr. You get arrested and the bad guys try to force you to deny Jesus. You refuse, and they torture you a little bit, and give you another chance to deny Jesus. And so on, until they finally kill you.

But why on earth would it be that way? This whole narrative assumes that the bad guys hold the same beliefs about what it means to be a Christian as you do. Christians are supposed to remain loyal to Jesus regardless of the cost*, and therefore the bad guys are going to try to get you to be disloyal to Jesus, apparently. Did the bad guys attend all the same Sunday School classes that you did and learn what it really means to be a Christian, and that's how they know what test to set up before your martyrdom? Seriously?

Of course it doesn't work that way. While there may be some minority of bad guys out there who are just really really bothered by people stubbornly believing in Jesus, don't you think most of the persecution is motivated by other things? Like power, or money, or us-vs-them hatred and fear? Do you think anybody burns down a church and then is horrified to realize that some of their victims weren't actually super-religious and would have totally renounced Jesus if given the opportunity? Do they care what the individual Christians believe specifically, or is it a case where they see Christians as a threat just because their culture is different?

Doesn't it make more sense that the disciples were persecuted and killed for being leaders in a movement that was seen as a threat to Rome's power, and the bad guys didn't care at all about the disciples' individual relationships with or beliefs about Jesus?

Next time you read an article about Christian persecution or about Christians being targeted and attacked, ask yourself if it reads like they were attacked for being members of a hated cultural demographic, or if the bad guys had carefully researched the beliefs of each victim and were really angry at how none of them could be persuaded to deny Jesus. Obviously in either scenario it's evil and it's persecution. But it turns out that persecution and martyrdom don't really look like what I learned in church.

-------------------------------

* There's a whole separate discussion to be had on whether it's okay to lie and "deny Jesus" to save your own life. In church it's always assumed that OBVIOUSLY the RIGHT thing to do is never deny Jesus. But I think that's absurd. Why play along with the bad guys' rules? Do whatever you have to do to stay safe. Is God going to be mad at you for not obediently following every command and answering every question that a dangerous criminal demands of you?

Related: Christians and Tests