:: in.a.mirror.dimly ::

Over the past few years and certainly over the past few months and days I’ve read a number of posts where folks who formerly considered themselves in the US Emergent conversation are distancing themselves from it.

For the most part, I agree with them on their theology and views on mission. I share some of their uneasiness about the Emergent branch of the broader emerging conversation, and I welcome their discussions about theology and practice.

However, my concern is that these posts have perpetuated one of the biggest weaknesses of emergent: we are defining ourselves by what we are not. Making grand “good-bye” announcements distinguishes them from others in the emergent camp publicly, setting up a new camp that is not emergent even if it has been shaped by it.

I get the substance of it, but I question the form. Why make a public exit? By drawing such lines in the sand back in the day the emerging/Emergent crowd made it much more difficult to find allies and common ground. The same may be happening today.

Where I’m Coming From

Back in 2004 and 2005 theology was something that I had to pick apart and deconstruct, pointing out its flaws. While I began to accumulate new perspectives and learned exciting new takes on theology and mission, there still existed this side of me that was grounded in the negative—though I would have asserted that I was a humble Christian committed to relearning things.

I wasn’t a theologically flat-footed, contextually obtuse, missionally obsolete conservative evangelical anymore. I was emergent, which meant a lot of things, but in many ways thrived on not being those things. The protest side of Emergent is the one critique that D. A. Carson nailed, even if the rest of his book was fit for rabbit litter.

My problem was I gained my energy from what I was not, rather than what I was. I needed to figure out where I wanted to be rather than where I didn’t want to be.

When I DIDN’T Come Out

In May of 2007 I wrote a blog post that I decided I shouldn’t share. I wrote it because I felt like I couldn’t invest very much into Emergent any more, even if I was profoundly shaped by it and the broader emerging church. I wrote a few hundred words sharing my grievances.

But I never posted it. Looking back, I’m very glad I sat on that one.

Over the following months and years I made some changes. I started listening to different people, reading some different books, and interacting on some different blogs. However, I kept following some of the same blogs and kept many of the same formative books on my shelves. The difference was one of focus: I needed to move on to think a little differently and to practice a little differently than where I sensed the bulk of the emergent crowd seemed to be.

I don’t think announcing my grievances would have helped things all that much back then. I still interacted with a broad group of folks—some I agreed with and others I didn’t. Perhaps I’d challenge someone with a blog comment if I disagreed, but if that person wasn’t receptive or became too combative I dropped that person from my blog reader list or whatever we used before Twitter to keep in touch.

Defining Ourselves by What We Are Not

Now that many of the rank and file who have benefited from the deconstruction and perspectives of the Emergent conversation have begun deconstructing Emergent itself, setting themselves apart from something, and moving on with their lives to something else. Does any of this sound familiar?

One of my greatest regrets from my early years of emergence was writing a letter to a friend about the problems at our church and cutting myself off from him and our church. I’d give anything to take that letter back, even if I still believe everything I wrote. Thankfully God’s grace can bridge the gaps we make.

I understand that some public figures no longer want to be associated with the Emergent movement. They have other projects to be associated with now. However, I’m not sure the majority of the “Good-bye” posts are beneficial for ourselves or for the body of Christ. Do we need to once again set ourselves apart from another group?

Hope for the Conversation

After I tucked away my e-mail about leaving emergent in 2007, I became acquainted with Steve Knight at the Emergent Village blog and Tripp Fuller of the Homebrewed Christianity Podcast. Even though I didn’t think my views were necessarily in the Emergent mainstream, Steve welcomed me to guest post on the Emergent Village blog. Tripp invited me on to his podcast where we chatted for hours about theology and practice long after the podcast stopped recording.

I have since benefited from their tweets, comments, posts, and podcasts.

If I’d gone ahead with that blog post back in 2007, those conversations and relationships may not have happened. While I have since stopped following certain philosophers and theologians that may or may not be at the core of Emergent, I don’t feel a need to say, “Good-Bye” to it because there are friends I could lose, perspectives that I need, and conversations that I enjoy.

So I encourage everyone to debate with charity and to offer up critiques when necessary. Post your misgivings about new books that come out—hopefully I’ll have another one for everyone to take a crack at before too long. I am all for a robust debate and questioning of theology and practice.

However, I’m not so sure saying, “Good-Bye” is the best way forward for most of us. We may find that by defining ourselves by what we are not, we end up cutting ourselves off from what we could become.

The debate about the Tim Tebow commercial set to air during the Super Bowl has been completely off base if you ask me. Boo hoo, the Super Bowl has an advertisement for something that may be vaguely political instead of beer bottles with helmets, women being sexually harassed by men, and retro hippie commercials with new soda cans.

I think I’ll get over that.

The Tebow story is a very inspiring and good story. It’s a story that should be shared. I’m glad that Tebow and his mother are sharing it. However, the way it’s been done reveals something very troubling about the priorities of Christians, how we deal with problems in our society, and how Christians today think of allocating resources.

I’m not going to argue against abortion being a serious issue for us to deal with today. There are poor pregnant women who can’t afford to support a child and then there are wealthy women who don’t want to have a child, and we need to talk about real solutions that will help women who may feel like they don’t have many options at this time in their lives while saving the unborn. Yes, we should stop abortion.

Sadly, the Tim Tebow commercial reveals that Christians are making several key oversights when it comes to saving lives today.

Our Priorities

The Super Bowl commercial is generally aimed at affluent Americans, though perhaps some poor folks may be watching as well. However, by and large, if you figure out the demographics that most advertisers are aiming for, you can guess that the Tebow commercial aims to convince middle to upper middle class voters (those relatively well off) that they should not have abortions or support legislation that permits abortion.

Whether this is an intended oversight or not, the message is particularly striking at a time when charities such as World Vision are in an all-out struggle to save lives down in Haiti. In addition, by tossing so much money at a particular demographic, the poor are not made into the kind of priority spoken of in passages such as Luke 4:18-21 or Matthew 11:2-6. Success in the Kingdom of God is synonymous with declaring the Good News to and ministering among the poor.

Ministry in Society

This ad also shows that overall Christians have chosen to speak to our culture on a large platform in an impersonal and hands off manner. Rather than taking the personally costly road of directly helping the women considering an abortion, it’s much easier to write a check, let someone preach the message, and then throw our hands up in despair when no one listens.

The ministry of Jesus was incarnational and costly. In Philippians 2 Paul speaks of Jesus who emptied himself and took on the form of a servant. A Super Bowl commercial is a big platform that does not require us to empty anything other than a bank account.

Allocating Our Resources

Lastly, the Tebow commercial brings up a matter of stewardship. The organizers of this commercial no doubt wanted to save lives, and for that I commend them. However, is this the best we can do with the resources at hand?

Three million dollars were tossed into an ad campaign that will most likely only harden support either for or against abortion without changing many minds or saving many lives. We can debate that, but hear me out: there are children in Haiti who need basic food and water to survive, tribes in Africa who needs wells, and malnourished children all over the world who could benefit greatly by a three million dollar investment.

If we only want to talk about ending abortion, then I’d ask whether this money would be better spent by creating medical clinics for financially struggling mothers. There are a lot of clinics I know of who would love a little bit of that money to purchase an ultrasound machine or to add a few doctors to their staff. Since health care in America isn’t quite as important as funding a war to drop bombs on terrorists hanging out in caves, I think that’s the least we could do.

A bunch of right-wing Christians opening medical clinics so that the poor can have health care may just shock enough “godless liberals” with our love and generosity that they’ll want to find out about Jesus for themselves.

Grace on Game Day

I want to make clear that I’m not necessarily mad at Tebow or Focus on the Family. I’m sad. This is a terrible opportunity to waste. It’s sad to think that three million dollars could be spent for the sake of thirty seconds of air time while there are so many pressing problems among the poor in America, Haiti, and around the world.

I’m also sad that there isn’t a more robust debate about the message of Jesus and it relates to the way we allocate our resources. Instead, we hear about whether we should be tolerant or intolerant of the political end of this message. To be frank, I don’t care about that in the least.

The Tebow commercial reveals that we have some priorities out of line, and I don’t give myself a free pass on this by any means. It’s a constant struggle to keep my priorities in line. As we watch the Tebow commercial I suggest we stop to think about how we use our resources, how we minister to others, and how we can strive to imitate the costly, personal ministry of Christ.

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar.

There’s a group in the world today that naturally gravitates to poor countries. They offer hope and answers to the people in this forgotten lands.

Many of the leaders of this group have left behind lucrative careers and significant family wealth, convincing new members that they are genuine and committed to their cause to the end. Should any of their leaders fall, authority is shared by many, enabling them to continue their work and to multiply rapidly.

Let’s review: they work on the margins, they offer hope and answers, they made sacrifices for their beliefs, they share authority, and they multiply through small cells. The people I’m referring to are terrorists/Islamic militants.

In one example of this at work, former CIA agent Michael Scheuer comments, “Unfortunately, in the Islamist military organizations, their leaders are actually on the battlefield. There are people who have given up livelihood such as a surgeon in terms of Zawahiri, a very prominent family in Egypt, the son of a multibillionaire in Osama bin Laden. So, what happens is the person you’re talking to is very attractive by his own system and not very attracted by yours.”

The trouble is that the methods of the terrorists resemble the way of Jesus on several counts. If you’re familiar with the New Testament, it should come to mind that Jesus’ mission revolved around proclaiming good news to the poor, he offered new life and hope, he called his followers to make serious sacrifices by taking up their crosses, he decentralized leadership by calling the greatest to be servants, and his followers spread rapidly through a series of small churches.

Of course there are some exceptions and differences that we could argue over—I’m especially expecting pushback over the leadership point—but for the most part there are some striking similarities that we should not ignore. In a sense, the terrorists are operating in ways similar to the Kingdom of God.

I suppose the question now is how the Kingdom of God, one established by self-sacrificing love, can counter those who are fueled by fear and hate.

We’ve seen Christians latch on to enough movie stars, beauty queens, and politicians to realize that we are in the midst of legitimacy crisis. This is rooted in wanting to be viewed as legitimate, powerful, and influential in both our government and in popular culture.

Our situation speaks to not only an identity crisis, but a legitimacy crisis. Are we truly making ourselves and the Gospel we preach more legitimate by leeching on to celebrities?

You can probably guess what my answer is going to be…

When Jesus said that all authority on heaven and earth have been given to him, he was locating the source of influence and power in the world in himself. A crucified Messiah who overcame the world through his death and resurrection leads us down a path that helps us fulfill the Beatitudes today: blessed are the poor, blessed are those who mourn, blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the meek.

In such a Savior and in such actions are where we find our identity and legitimacy.

The Messiah did not establish his Kingdom by fighting for influence on the top. He did not recruit “role models” to his cause. He initiated a mustard-seed style Kingdom that makes a mockery of our celebrities and politicians.

How can Christians find legitimacy and influence in the world today?

To quote a wise man: Sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, start following Jesus, and claim your treasure in heaven. To be perfectly blunt: we need to lose.

We can’t beat the world at its game because Jesus never intended to play that game. The more I consider what it looks like to follow Jesus, to pick up my own cross, and to die to myself so he can live in me, the more I’m beginning to realize that Jesus peals away all that we value so that we can trust in him more perfectly.

What do we want more than Jesus?

Judging by the way some Christians fawn over supposedly Christian celebrities as their standard bearers and fight for political power and influence, I think we can ID a few things pretty easily. However, bloggers such as myself treasure influence and readership, theologians crave being right, and the list goes on because we all have our idols to identify.

Once we identify those things that we want, disciples of Jesus need to give them up. Stop worrying about them. Stop fighting for them. Lose.

It is only in losing the fading things of this world that we experience not only the intimacy of Christ, but are enabled to speak to our world with true influence and power: the influence and power of Christ. We can’t speak with the authority and power of Christ fighting for influence, recognition, and power at the top. 

Paul reminds us that we are seated with Christ in heavenly places—not earthly places. Let us throw aside all that we crave, all that overshadows Christ so that we can claim our true identity and influence as loving servants of God’s Kingdom who are poor, meek, and peaceful.

Christians, especially evangelicals, should be concerned about Sarah Palin’s book that releases on November 17th. It’s not quite on par with the coming of the apocalypse or government-sponsored death panels, but I think we have real problem on our hands.

It doesn’t have to do with Sarah Palin the author.

I don’t begrudge Sarah Palin writing a best-selling book. Good for her. I hope it pays the college bills for her kids and helps her grandkid. I know I was really excited about the release of my book, and I’m sure Sarah Palin is too.

It doesn’t have to do with Sarah Palin the politician.

Folks who drink up politics will certainly find it an interesting read, and I have no issue with the book as a political work. Does Palin want to lambaste the McCain campaign staff? Go for it. Does she want to raise her profile before running for President in 2012? Huckabee may not be happy about that, but don’t worry about me.

Go for it Sarah. I have no qualms with that. It’s a free country made up of mavericky, real Americans who will love her book. Some don’t think she should run for public office, but I’m not going to debate that because I know as little about politics as she knows about the Sunnis and Shiites.

We should be concerned because Sarah Palin knows her only shot in an election is mobilizing the conservative evangelical base. If we think Christianity has been overly-politicized now, we should shudder at the thought of what Palin can do.

In addition, as Palin stakes her claim as a “Christian” politician, Christianity and evangelicals in particular will continue to be painted as right-wing political affinity groups. Lost in the mix is the Gospel, Jesus, and the Great Commission. Will those on the left, who need to hear the Gospel, believe that Jesus comes with a Palin 2012 bumper sticker?

Read Palin’s book. Campaign for her. Vote for her. That’s fine with me.

But we should be concerned that the effectiveness of the Gospel message will be blunted because it is being associated with the Republican party, and Palin may need to do that all the more to solidify her place. Christians may play right into this by holding her up as a model Christian, a standard bearer for evangelicals.

Let’s remember that some could hold up President Obama up as an ideal Christian as well. For those on the right, such a notion should help communicate the polarizing effect of upholding Palin as an evangelical leader.

A Suggested Way Forward

Whatever we think of Palin, Obama, and their Christian beliefs, let’s resolve to carefully select spokesmen and spokeswomen who aren’t politically polarizing and who are best known for their faithfulness to Jesus, the Messiah and Prince of Peace. We could pick those who have passed from this world or we could pick those still among us.

We could talk about Dorothy Day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Wendell Berry, C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham, or any other model Christian who has a solid record of preaching the Gospel, serving others, and gracefully representing the cause of Christ. Christians cannot afford to let a politician represent us because politicians have to take sides. For those called to reach the whole world with the Gospel, that is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

I used to live 15 minutes from a naval air force base. Large military escort planes often hummed over our neighborhood, and some evenings I would drive by as they swooped in over the road. All around the base a series of shopping malls and various businesses offered everything a military base could need.

Over the years the local politicians debated the wisdom of having a military base on the edge of Philadelphia. Throughout the region similar debates cropped up from time to time about similar bases.

More often than not, the bases remained open. While some could make an argument for each base’s importance and function in the grand military scheme of things (though a “naval” base north of Philly strikes me as a hard sell), the loudest and most repeated argument proposed for keeping the bases was the local economy.

“If our little Naval Air base closed down, the local businesses around the base would experience a loss in business and put a lot of hard-working Americans out of work.” So we almost always kept the bases, kept spending our tax dollars on them, and kept folks employed.

A few years later, I began to notice that a lot of my friends had fathers who worked for a local business that built all kinds of stuff for the military. In fact, one of these companies still employs thousands of people in the Philadelphia area, doing business in both the civilian and military sectors.

A few years after that I began to notice that a lot of scientific research at universities is also funded by the United States Defense Department—which used to be aptly named the “War” Department. Some folks at universities can’t talk about their research projects from time to time because they are classified.

These scattered memories came to mind while I watched several commercials during the World Series that aim to support our troops and their families. It’s a nice sentiment to wish them well with the fast approaching holiday season and to pray for their safe return to their families.

However, while we may sing Christmas carols about peace on earth, pray for the safety of our soldiers, and the coming of the Prince of Peace, the three examples above hint that the stability of our economy depends on none of those things taking place. We need our soldiers to be placed into harm’s way even as we wish them the best. We need wars, we need enemies, and we need a military to fight them all so that we can keep our bases, businesses, and overall economy running.

I’m not willing to say that we need to scrap the entire military of the United States. Every secular state needs to make provisions for national defense (though the nature of that defense is debatable). What bothers me is the way our nation’s economy depends so heavily on military spending, keeping our soldiers in harm’s way, even while we’re told to honor them and to wish them season’s greetings

We could invest more money into nation-building, diplomacy, education, and development, but we already have an economy that depends on defense spending, so it’s way more comfortable to keep manufacturing arms and tearing apart families through lengthy deployments. But don’t worry! We are united in the support of our soldiers and wish them a happy holidays.

That should make things better, right?

The truth is that America has become cowardly and defeatist in its approach to the economy and to innovation. We have bought into the fear that we can’t survive economically by supporting global education, development, and peace. War can be good for business, and so we stay addicted to it.

Save an unnecessary military base for the sake of local jobs? Absolutely. Pump money out to defense contractors as we continue our fight in Afghanistan and keep Americans working in the production of war material? Of course! Seek other options for global peace and local economic development?

Nah. Let’s just keep putting our soldiers in harm’s way.

We tell ourselves that our soldiers like being honored, even if they have to risk their lives, get exposed to carcinogenic explosives, endure post-traumatic stress disorders, and miss out on irreplaceable time with their families. The American soldier is no doubt courageous, but in the midst of honoring them we fail to discuss our nation’s cowardice, our unwillingness to make sacrifices, and our fear of changing our systems and economy.

Perhaps we are guilty of hiding behind the bravery of our soldiers because we fear being exposed for what we are. Before we rush to honor the sacrifices of our soldiers, perhaps we should first ask what we are willing to sacrifice.

I’ve been following a controversy over a racially insensitive video, poster, and book cover put together by two white Christian men. The gist of the controversy is that the book’s art work and video content both exploit Asian culture and promote demeaning stereotypes.

Two Asian American leaders (Cho and Rah) asked for apologies. Edward Gilbreath also offers clarity and empathy. At first one of the makers of the book and video didn’t seem all that willing to hear out Professor Rah. Thankfully they later wrote an apology note and apparently a phone conversation took place at some point on November 4th between the concerned parties.

Things seem under control, but I wanted to share a few thoughts based on how we can use this situation to clarify our beliefs, correct misconceptions, and to make our communities stronger when dealing with racial insensitivity (not necessarily “racism” in every case).

It’s never comfortable to find out that you’ve offended someone, especially when it has to do with race, and ESPECIALLY when that offense is created by something as permanent as a book in print. I can see how one may initially become defensive. However, the only position for white Christians on this issue is to open ourselves up to critique, to admit we’ve been wrong when necessary, and to confess that even in our attempts to make things right we may make things worse. In fact, I fear that even in writing this post I may have some large elephants in my own room…

Case in point: I initially wrote at the start of this post that Asian Americans found the video and book cover offensive. That was partially true, but I missed the point right off the bat that all Christians should be offended when one part of the body of Christ feels wounded. So even in dealing with these matters, I can see I have a long way to go.

As I examine my own heart and what I’ve seen online over the past few days, here are a few of my observations about white Christians and matters of racial sensitivity:

• We don’t want to think of ourselves as racists.
• We generally aren’t openly or overtly racist. It’s far more subtle than we expect, taking the form of jokes, etc.
• When we mean well, it’s hard to admit we hurt feelings.
• Those in the majority should never ask victims of injustice to turn the other cheek.
• We don’t realize that racial insensitivity demeans the offender while also demeaning the offended.
• It’s embarrassing to be wrong and to admit failure publicly.
• It’s difficult and painful to right wrongs.
• Those in the ethnic majority have a non-binding vote on what’s offensive. The minority gets the binding vote.

If I was one of the guys who designed that book and video, I’d be feeling crushed right now. So crushed, that I probably would have a hard time understanding how it feels to be a mocked ethnic minority. If I learned that a book I’d invested significant time and resources into offended a significant part of the population with its central motif, I’d probably have a hard time entering into a dialogue about it at first. However, if I was an ethnic minority, I’d probably have a hard time sleeping until the matter was resolved.

I’m more concerned about the way we resolve future matters of racial insensitivity than in examining the minutiae of this current case. This convinces me that white Christian leaders, writers, and whoever else can start by doing a few things:

• Seek the counsel of diverse perspectives that will surprise, challenge, and even unsettle us. In writing Coffeehouse Theology I sought out readers from a variety of backgrounds, regions, and denominations who made it a better book. I am continually surprised by my own limitations and need for Christians who see the world differently.
• Ask those in the minority to identify the problem and to suggest a solution. That’s something one of the men involved in this did that I think is worth emulating: he asked Professor Rah to outline a way to make things right.
• Make “listening” our first response to critiques of racial insensitivity. Some white Christians whined about the way Asian Christians handled this is, and it borders on Pharisaic legalism that strains a gnat and swallows a camel. Saying that a critique of racial insensitivity fails to follow proper confrontational protocol and is therefore somehow invalid borders on the absurd. I think our critiques of one another have mixed results at times, but when someone says, “You’ve hurt me!” We need to listen, rather than picking apart exactly how they did it. We can discuss the details of “critique protocol” down the line, but in the grand scheme of things, racial injustice and insensitivity are far more destructive for Christian community than a blog post that strikes some as angry or critical. Of course he sounds angry and critical! He’s been deeply wounded! Failure to listen only creates a frustrating spiral of accusation and counter accusation that does no good for the body. The least those in the majority can do is listen.
• Insensitivity Can Crop up Elsewhere. The other elephant in the room here is the way Christians treat women, to say nothing of Asian women (which is something I’m only mentioning in passing because I don’t have the chops to address that one). If you now have some insight into the ways we can be offensive and patronizing toward Asians, then I don’t think it’s too far a  stretch to apply these lessons to the ways that women are stereotyped, patronized, and mistreated in the Christian camp, especially by white males in leadership. The conversations we’re having here with our Asian brothers and sisters in Christ also need to happen with our sisters in Christ.

That’s all I’ve got for now. I’ve already written more than I ever intended. I hope we can prayerfully move forward in our dialogue with one another. If I’ve made some glaring errors in this post, I’ll begin my apology now and end it after you e-mail me at edcyzewski (a) gmail (dot) com.

However, whatever this post’s inadequacies, I hope it’s a useful stone in the road toward reconciliation.

Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart have something in common. They thrive on their audiences believing in their goodness and sincerity, coat their beliefs in the palatable pill of humor, and command a loyal following.

They also are heavily merchandised, make a boat load of money from their shows, and rake in a bunch more through publishing deals. We can argue whether one is right, more sincere, or whatever. But we cannot deny that they have these things in common. And the moment anyone doubts they aren’t sincerely looking out for their best interests or their jokes fall flat, they lose.

The money stops.

In a perfect world these funny analysts would have our best interests in mind. Perhaps they do. I can’t judge for sure.

However, where there is a lot of money and power at stake for those on the right or left, the public should be suspicious. Before we lap up the comedy-laced analysis, the pouncing on sound bites, and the vilifying of political opponents, it’s worth asking what these entertainers (and we can’t forget they are entertainers first and foremost) have at stake. Will anyone listen to Glen Beck if he looks for the best with Obama? Will Jon Stewart manage to keep the jokes coming if he softens up on Republicans? And of course Beck is finding out right now that fear sells.

I wrestle to find a place in today’s political debate as a Christian. I’m so sick of either party “reaching out” to evangelicals hoping to swing an election by pandering to this issue or that. While I’m not convinced that government shouldn’t always be the first place we turn to help people, I also don’t believe it should be the last.

I’ll admit I love the idea of a society that allocates funds to ensure all people have basic health care. Medicare works well enough for senior citizens, and I’m proud that our nation provides it. I’d like to see that kind of care extended to the rest of those who need it. We sure need it more than we need two wars or bonuses for bank executives.

However, I don’t want to become a political proxy for a political party and alienate myself from others unnecessarily. Perhaps there’s no other way to do it, but I simply don’t know how exactly to engage this issue without becoming someone’s pawn. I have no interest in waving Beck’s or Stewart’s banners. I’m not sure if waving the banner of the Gospel, of loving my neighbor, or of becoming poor for the sake of others as Christ did means I need to toss my hat in the ring one way or the other.

After seeing the Republicans toy with Christians for so long, and after I have personally failed to think through what exactly I was getting myself into, I’m wary of political fights and the war of words streaming from both sides.

What does it look like to follow Jesus today in a politically divided America? Should the disciples of Jesus fight their way through the system or step away from it? If we do jump in, how far do we go? How do we define failure or victory?

As you can tell, I’m short on answers at this point.

I’d rather not rant about this Proposition Eight business. I think it’s more appropriate to mourn this mess spear-headed by Christians and Mormons.

I understand that some Christians see this as a freedom of speech issue, being able to define marriage as they best understand. I also know that many Christians are deeply troubled by defining marriage in terms other than a man and a woman.

However, we need to step back here and look at the larger picture. We need to look at the role of Christians in the grand scheme of things as ambassadors for Christ, ministers of the Gospel, and God’s redemptive people. We don’t have to approve of same sex marriage, but we do have to think of our mission, our reason for being here.

I like the way Paul speaks of his ministry—he describes himself as a good soldier who has to focus on obeying his commanding officer and completing his mission. Anything that gets in the way of that mission must go.

Christians are here on this earth to share the Gospel, to be agents of God’s Kingdom, and to bring redemption to this world. We’re picking up where Jesus left off: preaching the Good News, healing, and discipling. We can certainly involve ourselves in the matters of our state, however, we must carefully weigh whether these matters have an adverse effect on our mission. If they hinder our mission, then our involvement with the state must go.

The fact of the matter is that Christians are generally labeled as anti-homosexual, if not flagrantly homophobic and hateful toward homosexuals. The other fact of the matter is that Jesus has sent us to preach the Gospel to everyone, including this group. Therefore, it is my assertion that this Proposition Eight business has only succeeded in dragging Jesus through the mud and wasting $85 million that we all know could have been put to much, much better use.

Supporters of Proposition Eight spent around $40 million—it’s opponents $45 million. Just think about the impact that money could have had with groups such as World Vision, Prison Fellowship, Not for Sale, or just about any other missions and service group. This money could have saved lives, supported missionaries who preach the Gospel, or at least paid to place the Bible in someone’s hand.

Instead the followers of Jesus are known as intolerant and anti-homosexual. We can talk all day about supporting Prop. Eight while not being anti-gay, but no one will believe us. Our actions are drowning out anything we may say, whether about ourselves or about the Gospel.

Proposition Eight has crowded out the Gospel. Perhaps it’s not evil in and of itself, though some may make that case, but it certainly has taken evangelical Christians, people who are defined by the Gospel and its life-changing power, away from their primary mission to be witnesses who preach the Gospel.

The survival of Proposition Eight to fight another day means that more money and time will be squandered on something that really has nothing to do with preaching the Good News that Jesus offers salvation and redemption through his death and resurrection. The Gospel cannot be found in the fight for this law, no matter what we make of it. And as much as it inhibits our ability to fulfill the mission Jesus gave us, we must avoid such peripheral matters.

Let us resolve to know nothing other than Christ crucified and the power of his Resurrection.

“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

There is something beautiful and honorable about those who put their own lives in the path of danger for the sake of others. I have a good friend who works the tough hours as a police officer, and I can’t express how grateful I am to have someone with so level a head and desire to serve out on the streets.

I also know several former soldiers, veterans of the Second Iraq War. Some have moved on with their lives without the war impacting them too terribly, while others suffer severe headaches, tumors, and fatigue—the effects of the enriched uranium in our bombs also causing severe cancer and birth defects among the civilians in the war zones of Iraq and beyond.

Wherever these veterans are today, I am grateful that they put their own lives on hold, left family and friends, and traveled to distant lands. I believe they joined the American army with the best of intentions, hoping to hold up the ideals of liberty and justice. We can debate how our soldiers have been used by their superiors, the motives of our government, and the exceptions to these exemplary young people, but on the whole, I only know of honorable, dedicated people in our military.

There are always exceptions—those who join for the power and authority or simple financial reasons—though on the whole our veterans are worthy of being remembered and honored. In addition, many who have fought through the hell of war have come back as the strongest advocates for peace and diplomacy.

While it is good to honor these good people, Christians have a gray area to navigate. It is common for Christians to apply Jesus’ words from John 15:13 to the military context: giving one’s life for another. However, such a use of this passage makes a terrible blunder, mixing up one kind of sacrifice for another. This doesn’t negate the good that our soldiers do. It’s more a matter of apples and oranges.

Jesus laid down his life in a non-violent manner before the Roman and Jewish leaders, dying for the sake of all humanity—even those who murdered him. His death was a rejection of the empire’s path to establishing a Kingdom, choosing instead to inaugurate God’s Kingdom rule by laying down his own life, setting rule through power and domination aside, and demonstrating his love through his own death.

Jesus sacrificed himself for the sake of his enemies and friends. He never threatened anyone with physical harm. He rejected the kingdoms of this world in favor of God’s ground up, mustard-seed-style, yeast-through-dough Kingdom.

Though we hope America’s soldiers are only deployed for the cause of freedom and justice, we must keep in mind that our soldiers are at the disposal of the American government, which is not to be confused with God’s Kingdom. Soldiers are trained to kill their enemies, and as such they sacrifice themselves for their friends only, not for the sake of the enemy.

As General Patton once said, “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

And so we should certainly honor selflessness and courage. We should remember those who laid their own lives on the line for the sake of their friends.

However, we should not quote Jesus in the context of Memorial Day. Jesus chose a path of non-violence. We can debate whether such a path is feasible for a nation state today, but we should not confuse a non-violent path with a path that clearly puts violence on the table.

In addition, Jesus tells us to love our enemies, and he demonstrated his incredible love by not only dying for his friends, but also his enemies—offering them a chance to be reconciled to God. It should not surprise us that Jesus has set the bar for love incredibly high. We should also not be surprised that the love of Jesus is something quite different from the love of a soldier for friend or country. There are no doubt some similarities and points of contact, but we are dealing with two very different things.

As we honor the dedication of our men and women in uniform, may we spend even more time pondering and honoring the height, length, breadth, and depth of God’s love for everyone.