This page was created on January 2, 2005
This page was last updated on January 23, 2005

Well, once again I am (to my chagrin) reminded that my airtight pacifist arguments are based on a somewhat subjective and perhaps mildly myopic worldview (i.e., mine). No matter how impenetrable my arguments seem to be, they cannot possibly encompass anything beyond my own personal experience, which is at best limited, and is at worst blatantly biased. So I need this kind of reminder every second or third nanosecond-which is about how often I presume to have The Answer To The World's Problems.

But wait, there's more.

Like Mike, I am staunchly apolitical, and in fact waver toward anti-political if I don't mind my Ds and Rs. As a Christian, I've noticed this puts me in an awkward place (as do many of my opinions) with those leaning leftward-after all, how can I be neither for nor against the sitting president? And, as Mike observed, the rightward leaners raise a dubious eyebrow at anyone who might not be 100% behind their candidate (using the "if you're not with me you're against me" sort of approach, I guess). At any rate, I can't even say I'm anywhere in the middle-because doing so presumes there's a continuum of thought with two poles, and the more I observe in politics, the more I see a different geometry.

I know that I am going against popular political theory by suggesting that Democrat and Republican do not represent two opposing sides, but isn't it true that the United States is a republic (not a democracy) that functions on democratic (in the true sense of the word) principles? Sounds to me like we're already a mosaic, especially once we add in the Greens and the Independents and the Communist parties. What we find, then, when we dare to engage in the real dialogue Mike alludes to, is that we are individuals, with complex tales that cannot easily be pinned on either a donkey or an elephant.

Not to put to much of a "celebrate diversity" spin on Mike's column-I know that's not his intent-but in thinking about his column, and about how quickly and easily I think I have all the answers, I am reminded, also, that there are nearly six billion other people out there who may or may not believe they have the answers to the world's problems. Some of them are so steeped in private terror that they have no time to think about global solutions. How can I possibly hope to have an inkling of what they would consider to be a solution to their plight?

So, in short, Mike has encouraged me to "not think so highly" of myself and my airtight conclusions, particularly when, by definition, my personal experience is so sheltered. Similarly, I cannot support the idea that there are merely two opposing political views with others scattered about the middle and the fringes-not when there are six-odd billion different angles: a veritable kaleidoscope (to use a corny, if appropriate, metaphor) which changes as people do choose to engage in dialogue, and listen and think as well as formulate airtight arguments.

In which case I will relegate myself to learning to manage my own peacelessness in favor of peace; to confront my own lovelessness in favor of love; and to close my mouth in favor of keeping my foot out of it.

Thanks, Mike.

I can't really find much to disagree with in what Mike and Jenn have to say above, so I'll just add a few thoughts.

I agree with Mike's observation that many people involved in the political machine tend to window-dress political issues in a polarized fashion. Perhaps, as Jenn suggests, this is an attempt to gain unwavering loyalty through intimidation. I'll admit that some people fall for the script placed in front of them, but my pragmatism regarding the media makes me wonder exactly to what extent people being labeled as polarized really are.

Case in point: On a recent post-election vacation I journeyed from the safety of my liberal blue state deep into the heart of the "mandate" red states. Political analysts might have me believe that, as a gay male, I would be greeted with hostility and oppression either overtly or through suffocating undertones the moment I set foot off the aircraft—my jet-propelled Switzerland. Realistically, now that our country has become a Gap / Restoration Hardware / Best Buy homogenous consumer fest, it was hard to tell where I was. Now, I'm not naïve enough to assume that discrimination against gays isn't perhaps more prevalent in the red states, but I'm also aware that my blue state doesn't give me the protection that the political analysts might want me to believe it does.

What I do know is that I didn't even register any sort of negative reaction or vibe from my step-mother's clan at several family gatherings. These are people who more or less don't know me and can't rationalize away my supposed negatives because they can see the big picture. I'd say that some red states are bluer than we might think and vice versa.

I couldn't agree more with both Mike and Jenn that war and politics are very complicated, and that it would be best not to presume that any one person holds the answer or the responsibility for either. Furthermore, the moment that we personalize the issues, they take on different perspectives that we can't dismiss by returning to our ivory tower.

Along those lines, I saw a report today stating that support for the war in Iraq has hit a new low. It is interesting that not only do many shun a "real dialogue" as Mike states, but it also seems that as a society we treat something with such final repercussions as war as if it were a reality TV show that has ceased to suit our fancy.

This reminds me of a discussion that I had with Greg and Jenn Wright regarding the war. Greg's assertion was that our elected representatives were doing exactly what we elected them to do—representing the wishes of the majority. So, now that we've thought through it, apparently, it doesn't work for us. Fortunately, we, the people, aren't to blame for anything.

Seriously, though, it is encouraging that voters continue to engage the issues. But I can't help but wonder how similar situations will be handled in the not-so-distant future. Have we really learned anything? I'm not too hopeful on that score.

In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of Christianity as "the ministry of reconciliation."⁵ By this, he means that the central story of the faith is the reconciliation of Man to God through the blood of His Son, Jesus. Christianity, then, is the ministry of reconciliation because all who claim the name of Christ are ministers—literally, servants in the Greek—of God's specific conciliatory purpose.

But Christianity is not only the ministry of reconciliation—it is the ministry of all things godly. One of the other theological terms applied to the act of Jesus' death on the cross is redemption. In conceiving Hollywood Jesus, David Bruce understood that Christianity is also the ministry of redemption—and in particular, it is the redemptive hope for our culture: not through legislation, stone-throwing or critical negativity, but through showing us the godly things already embedded in our culture. For God reveals Himself through all that He has created, even the things that we may not particularly like.

After Eden is dedicated to this redemptive vision. We believe, as G.K. Chesteron put it, that "humanity is not incidentally engaged, but eternally and systematically engaged, in throwing gold into the gutter and diamonds into the sea."⁶ That's not a reality we endorse. We'd like to help salvage the gold from the gutter, and rescue the diamonds from the sea.

Mike Gunn is a pastor at Harambee Church in Tukwila, Washington, and was cofounder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

Jenn Wright is a writer with degrees in literature and theology. She is co-writing the Narnia coverage for Hollywood Jesus, which has debuted this fall in anticipation of the first movie's 2005 release.

Hollywood Jesus Senior Editor Greg Wright is a writer and ordained minister of the dramatic arts. He teaches English Literature at Puget Sound Christian College, and is author of Peter Jackson in Perspective: The Power Behind Cinema's The Lord of the Rings.

Editor Dave Stark is an ordained minister and former Microsoft manager. He is now a partner in Restoring Hope Construction.

The Devil's Advocate is a composite personality of our consultants and editorial staff. He may look like someone you know—and probably thinks like a lot of them.

Edwin Starr
On War

What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'.¹

Gertrude Stein
On World War Two

This war is not at all a nice war.²

John Stuart Mill
On War

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.³

Eleanor Roosevelt
On War

The next war will be a war in which people, not armies, will suffer, and our boasted, hard-earned civilization will do us no good.⁴

Chesterton
On Perception
It is a strange thing that many truly spiritual men... have actually spent some hours in speculating upon the precise location of the Garden of Eden. Most probably we are in Eden still. It is only our eyes that have changed.⁷