Remembering Martin of Tours (and Pete Hegseth)

Perhaps many of you don’t remember much (or anything) about Martin of Tours. But he is a man worth recalling, and his commitment to non-violence is commendable for people of all ages to consider and to emulate. 

Icon by Kreg Yingst

Martin of Tours was born around 316 A.D. in what today we call central Europe. He was the son of a Roman military officer. Like his father, he was compelled to serve in the Roman army. Even though a soldier, Martin was drawn to the Christian faith, still relatively new and sometimes suspect within the Roman Empire.

When he was still under 20 years of age, he encountered a poor, shivering beggar on a bitterly cold winter day. Moved by compassion but having nothing else to offer, Martin cut his heavy military cloak in half with his sword and gave one part to the beggar, keeping the other for himself.​

That night, Martin had a vision or dream in which Jesus appeared to him wearing the half of the cloak he had given away. Jesus said to the angels around him, “Martin has clothed me with this garment.” This story may have been embellished with dramatic details, but it captures the essence of Martin’s compassionate character.

This vision deeply affected the young man, leading him to be baptized soon afterward. For two decades or so, however, he continued to be a Roman soldier. But when he was about 40, Martin finally decided he could no longer remain a military man.

According to some sources he had another dream or vision which convinced him he could no longer be a soldier. Julian, the Roman emperor, prepared a military campaign in which Martin’s unit was expected to participate. But before the campaign began, Martin stepped forward and declared, “I am a soldier of Christ; I cannot fight.”

The emperor interpreted Martin’s words not as a matter of conscience but as cowardice, accusing Martin of seeking to avoid battle. Martin replied that his refusal was based on his Christian faith, not fear. This was the beginning of conscientious objection to warfare, embraced by only a minuscule percentage of Christians in the following centuries

The Waldensians, who began in France late in the 12^th century, is the only Christian group that practiced pacifism/non-violence before the beginning of Anabaptism in 1525. But it was challenging for even them and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), which began in England in the mid-17th century, to maintain that practice.

In the U.S., conscientious objection to military service was not recognized as valid until World War II. (See my May 20, 2017, blog post about conscientious objectors).

Diana Butler Bass is a well-known and respected public theologian. She posts meaningful articles on Substack twice a week. Her November 11 post was the second one this year about Martin. I decided to write about him after reading “The Warrior Ethos,” her September 30 post about Martin (see here).

The latter was largely Bass’s criticism of Pete Hegseth, who from 2001 to 2021 served as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard. On January 24, Hegseth (b. 1980) was confirmed as a member of the POTUS’s Cabinet. On an official U.S. government website, he is now identified as “the secretary of war.”

In late September, Hegseth called a surprise meeting at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, to deliver a strong speech to several hundred top military generals and admirals about reviving “the warrior spirit” or “warrior ethos” in the U.S. military.

As Bass wrote, “Hegseth is probably the most openly Christian nationalist true believer in the entire Trump administration …. He always brings Jesus to the war party. Because, of course, in the theology of Christian nationalism Jesus is a Warrior.” In contrast, Bass goes on to state,

No early Christian — not a single church leader, pastor, or theologian —
in those first decades after Jesus lived, taught, died, and rose again would have ever considered their God to be a warrior.

Except in the most metaphorical sense of being a warrior for Love.

So, whose example and words do we choose?—those of Martin of Tours or of the current U.S. Secretary of War? For those who are true followers of Jesus, it seems like a “no-brainer.” What do you think?

Celebrating 500 Years of Anabaptism

“The Martyrdom of Felix Manz” was the title of a blog post I made in January 2013. In that post, I noted that on January 21, 1525, “a group of people met in the house where Felix lived with his mother, and they formed a new faith fellowship” based on baptism after an open confession of faith in Jesus.

Today and in the weeks/months ahead, the 500^th anniversary of that January 21^st gathering is being widely celebrated by Anabaptists around the world. 

Anabaptist World Inc. is a “journalistic ministry serving the global Anabaptist movement.” Danielle Klotz, the Executive Director of that ministry, calls this month’s edition of that magazine a “special issue for a big milestone.” And indeed, a 500^th anniversary is a big milestone.*¹  

The combined membership of all Anabaptist churches comprises a very small percentage of Christians worldwide. According to the centerfold of the publication just mentioned, the “approximate number of baptized Anabaptist church members around the world is 2.13 million.”

Only 22 countries have more than 10,000 Anabaptist church members, and surprisingly, Ethiopia is the country with the most, nearly 515,000. The U.S. is next, with 456,000. It can be argued, though, that Anabaptists have had influence through the centuries that outstrip their relatively small membership.

Anabaptists are “the most radical reformers” in Protestant Christianity. The quoted words are the title of a major article in the above-mentioned magazine. The author, Anabaptist scholar Valerie G. Rempel, avers, “Appealing to scripture alone, Anabaptists broke with tradition to follow Jesus literally.”

The Protestant Reformation began in 1517 with the ideas and activities of Martin Luther in Germany. In 1518, soon after becoming the priest of Grossmünster, the prestigious church in Zürich (Switzerland), Ulrich Zwingli began a similar reformation of the Roman Catholic Church there.

Both of those reformation movements, however, preserved the basic rituals of the Catholic Church. The sacrament of infant baptism was deemed especially important. But the Jesus-followers who met in sight of Grossmünster Church on 1/21/1525 could find no biblical support for such baptism.

Felix Manz and Conrad Grebel were young men who agreed with Zwingli’s reformation activities, but they thought his work was too slow. So, rejecting infant baptism (which they denied as being true baptism), the small group gathered in Manz’s home performed and accepted “believer’s baptism.”

Their “radical” reformation put them at odds with both the religious and civic leaders in Zürich —and they were soon considered heretics by both the church and the state. Manz was executed by drowning on January 5, 1527, and in the following years, thousands of Anabaptists were imprisoned or killed.^*2

From the beginning the Anabaptists emphasized discipleship. They believed that following Jesus meant living according to his teachings as found in the Gospels.*³ Jesus’ command, “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:43) was taken literally. To kill in the name of Jesus was unthinkable.

There are many differences among Anabaptists today. Progressive Mennonite churches, such as the one I am a member of, are far different from the various conservative Mennonite groups and the Amish. But from the beginning until the present, pacifism has been a core belief of all types of Anabaptists.

As I wrote in a blog post in 2012 (see here), “I decided while still in high school that pacifism is the position I should espouse because of being a follower of Christ.” So, I was long a “closet Anabaptist” until joining Rainbow Mennonite Church in July 2012.

The Southern Baptist Convention (that I was closely related to for nearly 50 years) as well as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (that I was later a part of for over 10 years) agree with the Anabaptists on believer’s baptism, and until SBC’s swing toward fundamentalism, on the separation of church and state.

But neither of those Baptist groups endorses pacifism, and the former especially has traditionally emphasized the New Testament writings of the Apostle Paul (and the “Roman road”) even more than the four Gospels. They tended to proclaim the Gospel about Jesus more than the message of Jesus.

Currently, 500 years after its beginning, the Anabaptist understanding of the Christian faith is still badly needed—and maybe more so in the U.S. now than ever because of the growing emphasis on Christian nationalism in this country.  

_____

*¹ Dawn Araujo-Hawkins is one of the nine members of Anabaptist World’s Board of Directors. She is a member of Rainbow Mennonite Church, where June and I are also members.

*² The name “Anabaptist,” meaning “re-baptizer,” was initially used in derision of the first participants in the “radical reformation” which began in 1525. For more detailed information (and a couple of pictures) about the beginning of Anabaptism, I highly recommend “Five Centuries of the Radical Reformation” (see here), the Jan. 16 Substack post by Thinking Friend Brian Kaylor.

Also, John Longhurst, an Anabaptist journalist who since 2003 has been the faith page columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press (the oldest newspaper in Western Canada), is the author of the informative Jan. 18 column, “2025 marks the 500th anniversary of Anabaptism.”

*³ Although Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran, his best-known book, known in English translation as The Cost of Discipleship, was first published in German (1n 1937) under the title Nachfolge, which literally means “following.” Since its publication in English translation in 1948, it has been highly appraised by Anabaptists as well as by many in other Christian denominations.

 

 

The Calamitous Co-option of Christianity

Vern Barnet, Ph.D., is a gifted man who has long been a prominent person in Kansas City. I am honored to have him not only as a Thinking Friend but also as a personal friend. This blog post was written in response to a request that I received from Vern several weeks ago.

Thanks for Noticing: The Interpretation of Desire is the title of a book of sonnets that Dr. Barnet published in 2015. He is now revising that erudite book and is asking friends/acquaintances to make comments arising from some of the sonnets in it. 

In particular, Vern asked me to comment on “A Roman Soldier,” his 12th sonnet, using it “in some way to develop the Christian ideal of pacifism in contrast to military powers” linked to Christianity from the 4th century to the present.  

Constantine, the Roman emperor who reigned from 306 to 337, was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity.  

The spark of Constantine’s conversion was struck in 312 when during a military battle he suddenly saw “a bright cross of light emblazoned against the noonday sky and upon it the inscription: ‘In hoc signo vinces’ — ’In this Sign Conquer.’”*1 He then did use the sign of the cross and was victorious.  

The following year, the Edict of Milan was promulgated. It stated that Christians within the Roman Empire should be treated benevolently, so it gave Christianity legal status and a much-needed reprieve from persecution. 

Constantine’s vision changed his life—and Christianity as well. Indeed, up until that time the faithful followers of Jesus Christ had been pacifistic, but now for the first time their religion was being used in warfare. That connection has been prevalent in Christianity from then until present times.  

The subtitle of Barnet’s 12th sonnet is “Circa Anno Domini CCCXXV.” That year, 325, was when the Council of Nicaea (or Nicea) was convened by Constantine. The purpose of that gathering was to settle theological matters, but Constantine’s main desire was to foster unity among his subjects.  

Constantine did apparently seek to affirm and uphold many of the practices of Christianity and was not just a CINO (Christian in name only). But his continual use of the sword questions his understanding of and/or allegiance to the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

After 312, Roman soldiers continued to fight, but they did so in the name of a different “god.” The soldier in Barnet’s sonnet “slew heretics” for the sake of Mithra, the sun god. Now, though, “Constantine says Christ is why we fight.”  

Some in the Anabaptist tradition, which began in 1525, have called Constantine’s conversion the fall of Christianity. As one who identifies with that tradition, I agree with that designation. Thus, I am calling Constantine’s conversion a calamitous co-option of Christianity.*2 

Certainly, though, that has not been the last such co-option.  

Have you noticed Donald Trump’s co-option of Christianity? Of course, the current nominee for POTUS isn’t seeking to become an emperor such as Constantine was, and it is not all of USAmerican Christianity that has been or is being co-opted.  

To a large extent, though, Trump has co-opted a wide swath of white evangelical Christianity for his political ambitions. Around 80% of such Christians voted for Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, and recent polls indicate that the percentage this year may be nearly as high. 

Certainly, evangelical Christian leaders such as Ralph Reed have long sought to gain political influence by cozying up to the Republican Party. Reed is the founder (in 2009) and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition (F&F), and they have held conferences yearly since 2010.  

Trump has spoken at the F&F conferences repeatedly since 2011. (I attended that conference as a “spy,” and my impression of Trump, whom I then knew little about, was that he seemed like a “lightweight.”) In seeking to be elected POTUS in 2016, he gave a major speech in 2015. 

In June of this year, the F&F’s “2024 Road to Majority” conference was held at the Washington Hilton hotel, and the three minute video summarizing that gathering (see here) concludes with a brief clip of Trump’s keynote speech.  

Trump’s co-option of Christianity is, admittedly not as calamitous as Constantine’s was, but it is, sadly, a major reason why so many younger evangelicals, and others, have turned away from Christianity at this critical time when Jesus Christ’s message of love for all is so badly needed. 

_____ 

*1 These words are from the brief and quite positive account of Constantine’s conversion found in a Christian History magazine article (see here).  

*2 Co-option is the process by which a political leader or organization selects and absorbs some other organization or its ideas/practices into their structure or system in order to expand their strength/influence. 

Note: The co-option of religion is certainly not limited to Christianity. Consider, for example, the co-option of Shinto by Japanese militarists in the 20th century, of Islam by the Taliban and the Islamic State in the past several decades, Judaism by militaristic Zionists in the last century and since 10/6/23, Hinduism by the Bharatiya Janata Party in India, and Buddhism by militants in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.