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?

Happy New Year of the Snake (again)

Although it is still December 31 here in the U.S., rather than making this post at around 5:30 a.m., as I normally do, I am posting it at 9:00 (CST). This later time is midnight, the beginning of 2025, in Japan where I lived for so long. So it is now the Year of the Snake there, the same as in 2013.*¹  

People who are born in the Year of the Snake have positive character traits according to the Japanese (Chinese) zodiac. They are “deep thinkers, speak very little, and possess tremendous wisdom. They are fortunate in money matters and will always be able to obtain it.”*²

June and I are delighted to be expecting our third great-grandchild in May. We hope she will have the characteristics associated with those noted in the previous paragraph. Of course, there are also a few negative characteristics associated with each zodiac sign, so she will have to work to overcome those.

Consider what has happened in the Year of the Snake previously. While the snake does not have the strong negative connotations in Japan/China as it does in the West, awful things happened in the world in the Year of the Snake four times in the first half of the twentieth century.

The first Year of the Snake in the 1900s was in 1905. The Russo-Japanese War, which began in 1904, ended in a victory for Japan in September 1905. That war, fought between the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan, resulted in 130,000 (or more) deaths, about 2/3 of them Japanese. 

Twelve years later, in 1917, the United States declared war on Germany and became embroiled in what was called the Great War then and World War I later.  As many as 8,000,000 soldiers and 13 million civilians died as a result of that war, although U.S. deaths were fewer than 120,000.

The next Year of the Snake was 1929. On October 29^th of that year, the Wall Street Crash marked the beginning of the worldwide Great Depression. The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not return to its peak close of September 1929 until November 1954. 

And then in 1941, twelve years later, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7 occurred. The next day President Roosevelt called that a “date which will live in infamy,” and the U.S. declared war on Japan. There were at least 60 million deaths in that war, about 3/4 of them civilians.*³

Fortunately, the years 1953, 1965, 1977, and 1989 were years with no notably horrific world events. But the first Year of the Snake in this century, 2001, was certainly a traumatic one for the U.S.

2025 will be a different sort of “year of the snake” in the U.S. “Snake in the grass” is a common English expression. Since in Japan snakes do not have a “bad” reputation, though, there is no similar Japanese phrase. A Japanese website says the English idiom means “an enemy disguised as a friend,” or “someone you can’t trust.”

On January 20, the 47^th POTUS will be inaugurated. While I am generally careful not to use unkind, pejorative language, I am only one among many who think that he and several of his Cabinet nominees can be legitimately characterized as “snakes in the grass.”

Candace Osmond is a “grammarist writer,” and she says (here) that a “snake in the grass” personality type refers to “someone who appears friendly and likable on the surface but has hidden agendas and will do anything to get what they want. They usually manipulate and deceive others to achieve their goals.”

Ms. Osmond gives no examples, but sadly, it seems hard to deny that the incoming President clearly exhibits that sort of personality, and some if not many of his nominees seem to have that trait also.

So, I wish you all the very best in the Year of the Snake, but I also urge you who are U.S. citizens to be careful not to be deceived by the “snakes in the grass” who will constitute what may well be a kakistocracy, that is, “a government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.”

Since snakes repeatedly shed their skins, they are often seen as a symbol of regeneration in Japan. May this Year of the Snake be the beginning of the regeneration of good government here in the U.S.!

_____

*¹ I have written this article with little overlap to what I said in the post with the same name I made that year. Some of you may want to read that post (here) since many of you were not on my Thinking Friends mailing list then. The only comments on that post were from Craig Dempsey and Anton Jacobs, who are two of the three or four TFs who have commented most often over the past twelve years, and I much appreciate their many meaningful, thought-provoking comments.

*² From “The Twelve Signs of the Japanese Zodiac,” posted by Ms. Namiko Abe in June 2024 at this link. That article gives an explanation of all twelve of the animals included in the zodiac cycle in Japan. The same zodiac is used in China where the traditional lunar calendar is used, so the Chinese New Year won’t begin until January 29.

*³ These statistics come from the website of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans (see here). According to that source, the number of U.S. WWII deaths was under 420,000.

Helping Ukraine: War without Violence?

Today is the twentieth day since the beginning of the unprovoked Russian invasion of the sovereign country of Ukraine. The courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people has certainly been admirable, but their suffering has been great and their short-term future is exceedingly bleak. 

From the 3/5/22 cover of The Economist

President Zelenskyy’s Call for Help

Since the very beginning of the invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been widely praised as a courageous leader in his beleaguered country and an exemplary advocate of freedom. He will be awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award for 2022.

President Zelenskyy has repeatedly taken to the airwaves to make zealous appeals for increased military help from NATO and the U.S. He has warned that the refusal to give assistance through such means as declaring a no-fly zone over his country will result in the deaths of thousands of his citizens.

In response to that March 5 appeal, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said, “Let’s be cleareyed about our options: “A No-Fly Zone means sending American pilots into combat against Russian jets and air defenses—in a battle between nuclear powers that could spiral out of control quickly.”

So, how should the U.S. and NATO respond to Zelenskyy’s call for help?

Has President Biden’s and NATO’s Response been Weak?

Some in this country have used the lack of full positive response to Zelenskyy’s call as a sign of weakness on the part of President Biden.

An opinion piece in the March 11 online issue of The Christian Post is titled “The Ukrainian crisis: A catastrophic failure of leadership.” The author is Richard Land, President Emeritus of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Land asserts that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “so preventable,” pointing out that 62% of Americans believe that if Trump were still president, Russia would not have invaded.

Apparently, Land is among those 62%. He writes, “Putin feared Trump’s strength, whereas he holds Biden’s invertebrate weakness in disdain.”

He also asserts that “Biden’s weakness is illustrated by his apparent fear of what Putin might do.”

This same sort of criticism is expressed by Wendell Griffen, a progressive Baptist leader for whom I have great respect. I was disappointed, though, by what he wrote in a March 9 opinion piece.

Griffen asserted, “What perturbs Zelensky and delights Putin is the knowledge that world leaders lack the will to bring their arsenals, warriors and other war-fighting resources to bear against Putin.”

The opinion of Daniel Davis, a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army is far better than the two divergent Baptists just cited. Davis’s article in the March 8 post of The Guardian is titled “A no-fly zone means Nato shooting down Russian jets. We must not do that” (emphasis added).

Can there be Significant Help without Violence?

The effectiveness, and even the morality, of the violent resistance of the Ukrainian people is discussed in an article posted March 7 by Religious News Service (here). It is titled “Catholic theologians question the morality of Ukraine’s violent resistance.”

While I agree with much in that significant article, here I am writing only about the morality of help for Ukraine supplied by the U.S. and NATO—and in that regard I strongly believe that the stance taken so far by the U.S. is not a show of weakness but of prudence.

The increasing level of sanctions leveled against Russia will surely in the long run lead to a cessation of violent fighting in Ukraine. Direct military action would, no doubt, be more effective in the short run—but with the distinct possibility of leading to greater escalation of violence.

Greater military help of Ukraine now, could—and perhaps would!—lead to greater suffering, more casualties, and more violent Russian warfare not only against Ukraine but also against other European countries.

Hasty, belligerent acts by the U.S./NATO could—and perhaps would!—provoke Russia to use strategic nuclear weapons. And that could well be the beginning of World War III.

Looking at the bigger picture and the potentiality of unthinkable disaster, I am deeply grateful that the U.S. and NATO are seeking to help Ukraine mostly by non-violent (=non-military) means.