Home arrow Apologetics/Discussion arrow I Would Rather Die...
I Would Rather Die... PDF Print E-mail
Written by Rey   
Wednesday, 19 July 2006

Samurai (bushi), Ancient Japan’s military elite, would rather die in battle than get caught and bring dishonor to their master. In some cases, this death would come by their own sword by performing seppuku, a ritual suicide by means of cutting the abdomen not reserved for the Battlefield but not restricted from it either. The Samurai, while following the Bushido, lead a life of respect, honor, loyalty and ethical conduct so falling on their sword was a sign of extreme honor. Or so they said. They were people after all and sometimes people get funny.

I don’t know how often Samurai got together to talk things over back then: sitting around the rock garden and sipping on saki tea. Maybe they would talk about good fights they’ve had or what the Merchant Class is up to or maybe, in sibilant whispers share some juicy gossip about their masters. Inevitably, in my dream scenario, they’d look at their Master and consider why they’d fall on their sword for him.

“Like what if some gaijin went and talked bad about him. Would you do it then?”

“No—I’d just cut off the guy’s tongue. No, I fall on my sword for the essentials.”

“What are the essentials?”

Yeah Christians, what are the essentials of our Christianity? Not the historic branch of your denomination—but what is foundational to The Faith? What would you die for?

Now, I’m not thinking that because we’re willing to die for something that it makes our cause right or justified. Plenty of people have died for bad causes, false causes or no-causes; um that reads wrong. Heck, I’m not even saying it’s wrong to be convicted of things: I’m just wanting us to look at what is fundamental and would you die for it?

The King James Bible is the only Bible: would you die for that? Saved by grace through faith: die worthy? Your understanding of that last bit: die worthy? All of history is divided into dispensations: would you die for that? There was a covenant in the garden: would you die for that? Real wine or grape juice: die worthy? Guitar, pianos or choral: die worthy? Statues and candles…would you die for them? Big stone buildings: Die worthy? Jesus is God manifested in the flesh: die worthy? Your pastor or priest—would you die for him (or her)? Rock music or classical music: die worthy?

Jeremy made a great point when I asked him this question (in reference to the reasons he might leave a church): “When you say serious heresy are you saying something that's been judged as such in councils or something that you perceive as against the very fundamentals of our belief ie: Jesus is God; Jesus literally died and rose again, etc.?”

He answered: “I mean the basic fundamentals that the scriptural authors themselves showed concern for. I don't mean nitpicky little things that depend on which of several dozen things you could mean by the word 'nature'. Most of the creedal formulations that people have debated depend on things like that, and I have no concern at all for the fine details of philosophical positions that take so long to formulate that it's hard to tell what the person is even saying.”

And we do so go in circles about things. I doubt anyone would write in—but what would you fall on your sword for? What is your sine que non? Did I even spell that right? It seems to be begging for an accent mark…

Crossposted on my personal site. 


Comments (4)Add Comment
...
written by ThirstyDavid, September 22, 2005
I believe it is sine qua non.

I know this will be missing the point, but I would die for anything I believe, for the following reason. The only scenario in which that choice would exist would be a "recant or die" situation. So, the real question is, what would I lie about believing to save my life.

But that's not what you're looking for, is it? The doctrines that I absolutely will not compromise in any way are:

1. Theology proper
2. Bibliology
3. Soteriology

I still have things to learn about all of them, but you would have to work pretty hard to convince me I was wrong.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Rey, September 22, 2005
I've encountered two definitions of theology proper: 1) the attributes of God (trinitarian) and 2) the attributes of God (the Father).

sine qua non--you're right. My Spanish keeps forcing my sloppy Latin do things it shouldn't.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by ThirstyDavid, September 22, 2005
Hey, at least you've got Spanish and sloppy Latin. I only know a few phrases so I can act pretentious.

My definition of Theology proper is Trinitarian. Christology, Pneumatology and [fancy name for God-the-Fatherology] are sub-categories. But then, I'm just a pretend theologian.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by cwv warrior, September 23, 2005
I will tell you what the things we have left a church for...not sure if that means i'd die for the same reasons...maybe yes.
A church needs to trust and teach the authority of God's Word...without omission.
On a lesser urgency level, the importance of Christian world view thinking and living so that we learn how to effect the world for God's glory and expand His kingdom in all areas of life.
Maybe you could share about your small community's mission stance someday! Churches are far too isolated and irrelevant to the outside and lost. I can't say we have "missed" church all that much. :sad:
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0

Write comment
quote
bold
italicize
underline
strike
url
image
quote
quote
smile
wink
laugh
grin
angry
sad
shocked
cool
tongue
kiss
cry
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
< Prev   Next >