St. Andrew the Centurion was sent by the comander of  the emperor Maximian’s army, Antiochus to fend off Persian incursions. The odds it seems, were against them, and before going into battle Andrew pursuaded his cohort to call upon the name of Christ for victory. They routed the Persians and converted as a result.

Antiochus heard of their conversion and had them all tortured – Andrew was grilled, and his cohort had their hands nailed to wood blocks and 1000 soldiers were ordered to “chase” them beyond the borders of the empire. The only problem was – Andrew pursuaded these soldiers to convert as well!

Antiochus, by now suitably enraged, had them all massacred at a mountain pass in the Taurus mountains.

For the moment lets set aside the obvious difficulty of calling on the King of Peace to aide you in brutally beating back your political enemies back across the border . . .

Why did Andrew (supposedly a pagan) decide to call upon the name of Christ? This battle supposedly happened before the famous conversion of Constantine in AD312 – thus there was no “precedent” of note. What inspired him to think that Christ would bring them victory, or even come to help them?

Once Andrew and his forces achieved victory – was this all it took for them to believe in Christ? And oh, hang on lets get back to the pesky problem above – Jesus is not a “war god” and a basic perusal of the Gospels would tell you that so . . . . .

So they were pursuaded, and not only the original cohort but then also the 1000 or so who were ordered to torture and chase them. Interestingly it was through Andrew’s authority rather than the other poor souls, now physically attached to heavy wood blocks and running for their lives.

What are we to make of all this?

For one thing – it does appear that these narratives support the idea we explored some weeks back about how when the leaders of a faith community endure, or suffer for the faith – i.e. they give something up for it – others are sure to follow – as it is interpreted as not only a sign of committment, but also of the veracity of the claims of that religious expression. Fair enough.

It also presents us with a possible paradox. Here we have the symbol of the military might of the state – the army. Over 2000 men all converted en-masse. Not through violence, nor through force of arms, or the pressure to conform by the state, but through pursuasion, and example. True – it did have some help in that they believed that their victory was instigated by Christ, but after that?

What are we to make of the victory itself – it was a battle to save the state, for the interests of the state, and had no natural connection to the faith in, or teachings of Christ.