Dave,

I think there are 4 different kinds of people you described.

1) The suicide bombers:  They are not martyrs, but people who intentionally kill civilians in order to make a statement (the fact that they die in the process simply saves us the trouble of having to prosecute them to bring them to justice).  Their actions only serve to harm others.  Their actions don't actually further their cause or win new converts to their cause.  Their irrational actions are a result of blind religious zeal.

2) The monks:  They killed themselves in order to make a statement.    While I'm glad the monks chose not to harm others in the process, I'm afraid that their actions did not actually accomplish anything.  I haven't heard of any tyranny being stopped because someone lit themselves on fire.  It usually takes a war.  Ghandi did accomplish this without a war, but he didn't simply light himself on fire.  I'm no expert on Ghandi, but I do think he was persuasive on many levels.  He actually accomplished his goal.

3) Christians who would rather die than suffer:  Many people kill themselves while they are suffering - not just religious people (athiests and agnostics just have different ideas about what awaits them after they die).  Paul did say that it is better to be with the Lord than to remain in this world (if heaven is no better than this world then I want my money back!).  If I were suffering horribly I could see myself articulating my desire to be delivered from my suffering.  I'm not saying it would be the wisest thing to say, but I know that I am a weak, fallible human being.  I am not willing to endorse people's attempts to hasten the day of their departure, but I think we say and think many things when we are in the midst of suffering that we would not entertain otherwise.  I hope that the assurance of spending eternity in heaven would enable me ENDURE suffering when it comes my way instead of trying to ESCAPE it before God's time.

4) Jim Elliiot and his associates:  Their goal was not martyrdom.  They wanted to reach the Aucas with the gospel.  Martyrdom was simply a real RISK they took in the process of accomplishing their goal.  They knew that if they were successful in reaching the Aucas with the gospel the Aucas would eternally benefit.  They had centuries of church history that showed that in many cases people received eternal hope as a result of the gospel brought to them by missionaries who were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice IF necessary.  I don't think this is unhealthy.  This was a rational thought process - not blind religious zeal.  I do think that a person really needs to make that kind of decision thoughtfully and prayerfully, though.

Our soldiers RISK their lives by joining the military in order to bring political freedom to those who have yet to enjoy it and to protect the freedom that you and I already enjoy (by this I am not condoning every single military action the US has taken).  These men and women are not suicidal or foolish.  They know that freedom costs something and they are willing to RISK having to pay the ultimate price for it (our revolutionaries had the same perspective).  I don't think this is unhealthy, and I imagine you would agree.

I'm sure there are irrosponsible Christians with a romantic idea of what it means to be a martyr, and I've been guilty of that myself.  I've read that in the early church the anniversaries of the deaths of martyrs were celebrated instead of birthdays (too bad they couldn't cash in on the presents).  Yet, seeking martyrdom or speaking romanticallly about how glorious it would be to be martyred was frowned upon.  I can't remember the name, but there was a woman who, in the midst of torture, threw herself into the fire instead of waiting for the Romans to throw her in.  It caused a huge controversy.  Some called her a coward for ending her life early (even if only by a few minutes) and some called her a martyr since she was about to die anyway.  I'm not sure where I stand on that, but it is something worthy of contemplation.  Each person will give their own account before the Lord  for these kinds of choices.

That's my take.

Jack

Dave,

Yes, they all had a "transcendant hope", but some used it rationally and others did not.  Having eternal hope is not wrong or unhealthy.  It's what one does with it that makes a difference.  It's one thing to make an effort to die, and it's another thing to RISK one's own life in order to benefit others in tangible ways.  A "transcendant hope" makes suffering in this life bearable for many.  Others use it as an reason to end their suffering.

Romans 8 speaks of suffering now with the assurance that we will enjoy eternity.  Paul says in Philippians that while it is better to be with the Lord, he knew that it was God's will for him to suffer a little while longer in order to be a blessing to Christians.  I make these references to show that the Bible does not support the irrational use of eternal hope.

Before I knew Christ (and when I was deceived in the Assembly), I was always fearful of what would happen to me when I died.  Now that I have eternal hope I can really live.  I win both ways.  I can enjoy life now (in my newly rediscovered freedom in Christ) and I will enjoy eternity when I die.  I think I got a good deal going here!

Jack

Dave,

I'm glad we agree that there is a healthy way to look at this issue.  Wouldn't you say, though, that there are people who in reality have a healthy perspective regardiing eternal hope?  Billy Graham seems to be one of those people in my opinion.  I'm sure there are more.

Jack

It's been awhile since I've read Elizabeth Elliott's books about her husband, so maybe I would see things differently if I read them now.  However, as I think back I see a man who had a strong desire to preach the gospel.  He was a practical joker who frowned upon the stifled idea of holiness the Brethren leaders in his assembly had adopted.  He thought life should be enjoyed.  He also went against the grain of the leadership regarding his decision to go to South America (it was an ongoing controversy in his assembly).  He did use very militaristic language regarding his relationship with the Lord, but the underlying attitude that came across in his journals is that he served out of desire and love - not fear.  Overall I think that he was a man who truly loved life, but was willing to RISK it for the benefit of others.  Perhaps the fact that he wrote of martyrdom was not due to an obsession with death, but as a result of contemplating the risk he would have to take in order to accomplish his goal of preaching the gospel to the Aucas.

Jack

You said it.  Reading that sent chills up my spine.  The gospel brings reconciliation between wretched sinners and a holy God.  It also brings reconciliation between sinners that had previously been at odds with one another.

Jack

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends
John 15:13
Hi Dave:
Do you think the Lord meant this literally or figuratively?
Verne