The implications of this “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” are huge for our time. Jethani rightly points out some flaws within the church in seeking to fulfill our Big Mission using Big Solutions from Big Corporations, but I think he also reflects one of the major blind-spots of our culture. Does this flaw reflect Jethani’s hypocrisy? Or is it simply his own generational bias? I will share the details of Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine”

My concern about Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” is raised because of his views espoused in another post entitled, “Pro-Choice but Anti-Healthcare?” In truth, while Jethani rightly points out that Big Mission using Big Solutions form Big Corporations is not good.  He, like many other well intended Christians, seem to believe that Big Government is the solution to our Big Mission. Is Jethani’s post on Healthcare, when compared to his Daisy Cutter Doctrine, a demonstration of hypocrissy?  Cultural blindness?  Pandering to help sales for his magazine?  Or something else?  I don’t know because Jethani wont discuss the seeming contradiction of his two posts.

In response to his post, I posted the a comment on his blog.  Yet despite Jethani’s rhetoric about “entering the debate” Jethani was never willing to post my comment.  I attempted several times over a week long period to engage jethani, but it seems his definitino of “debate” is different from the one I read in Webster’s Dictionary.

So I decided to post my comment as “An Open Letter to Skye Jethani“.  Even if he is unable to offer a coherent defense of his position, then I am hoping someone who is better informed can help me out.

Hi, Skye. may I call you Skye?

My name is Joe. I am new to your site. I apologize in advance for the directness of some of my questions below, but I am truly hoping to get direct answers in return if you are willing to engage on this with me. You seem an intelligent writer and thinker, and I hope to get some insight into how you think on this issue since it is quite differently than me.

Your post begins with the assertion that those who are pro-life and oppose govt. run healthcare contradict themselves. I don’t know anything about the group you mention, and maybe they do have the flaws you write about, but on a personal level I would humbly submit my disagreement with your assertion that the only pro-life position includes govt. run healthcare.

I came to your blog when a friend referred me to your post on the “Daisy Cutter” Theology. It is very well written and I plan on writing favorable a post on my blog with some quotes [which is my previous post]. However, if you stand by what you wrote in that post, then I think you should apply it not just to missions, but to all aspects of your life as a follower of Jesus. There is no secular or sacred in our life, only the mission of the King.

Here is my concern Skye, in your other post [on the Daisy Cutter Doctrine], you write, “We have incorrectly made the scale of our methods conform to the scale of our mission. We have assumed that the magnitude of the ends should be proportional to the magnitude of the means. And in the process we’ve revealed how captivated our imaginations really are to consumerism. ”
I think that is exactly what you are doing here. You are wrongly assuming that the scale of your “compassion:” must be met by a massive systemic overhaul–not church-run but govt. run. Interesting how the “massive program for massive impact” solution is acceptable when it is the things we value and “consumerist” when it is something someone else values. Interesting how we reject “systems” in one area of life, but promote them in others where we think it serves our goals. And I say, “we” because I am prone to the same things Skye, if I do not take the wise council of brothers and sisters into my life.

Before I move on, let me give a little background on myself. I am a church planter and have been on a State run healthcare plan for the past 3 years. You have a good job Skye, so I assume you have healthcare from a private insurer. Do you have some personal experience with a successful govt. run healthcare system? My guess is that you would not trade in your private health insurance to be on my State insurance, would you? Based on my experience with both systems, I would trade insurance coverage with you any time.

You write, “But our conviction about life should also lead us to care about the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance and therefore receive inadequate care.”
Can you give me the breakdown of who is in this group of 45 Million? Your latter comment seems to indicate you think this number reflects the poor and unemployed. Do you really think that is the demographic of the total 45 Million? Just curious to know if you really understand this number or if you are just repeating what you read somewhere?

You wrote, “Our belief in the value of life should drive us to seek a system that will care for our brothers and sisters after they are born and not just before.”
Over the past few years, I have been without insurance a few times (mostly when the State messes up my paperwork and we lose it until we file again). We have several friends, and churches around us, who support a state run system and say, like you, that “no one should be without insurance.” Yet interestingly enough, when we were without insurance not one of these people, or churches, offered to help us pay for insurance, or pay for some of our medical bills. So, since this is your value, please tell me how many people who lack insurance do you personally assist Skye? Or is it that you just want other people to pay for your compassion? I see from your site, you are invited to speak at a lot of conferences. How much does it cost to go to one of those and run one? I wonder, if that money was better prioritized to help people instead of promoting careers or sell books or magazines, if the church could not do more for the Gospel? I wonder why the church needs the system of the State to care for people, when that is our mission not the mission of a secular world?

I am also interested to know, can you tell me exactly how much this new system will cost? Do you know how it will be paid for? Who will pay for it? The Bible speaks about indebtedness and its destructive power. Do you think massive debt and deflationary spending is a good solution and demonstrates compassion for the next generation who will be forced to work and pay for it?

You also wrote, ” We should care that the uninsured are 1.6 times more likely to die from cancer than those with insurance who are diagnosed and treated earlier.”
You are right, we should. The problem, however, with your comparison Skye is that you are using the wrong statistic to make your point. The 1.6% statistic you cite demonstrates that people who do not have the Private healthcare system (the one you think is completely broken and needs replaced) are more likely to die from cancer. In other words, the private healthcare system in America is successful in keeping people with cancer alive who would otherwise die. So clearly the system of healthcare itself is not broken if it is saving lives. Skye, if you want to make a statistically meaningful argument, you need to compare for me the rate of death from Cancer for the “fully” insured person in the Canadian and European healthcare systems vs. the Private US system? That is the correct comparison. Please look this up and then tell me. Do more people in the State run systems die of cancer or in the US private system? Which is more successful and caring for people? Do you know? I actually don’t know either, so when you find out please reinforce your argument with the right statistics.

You wrote, “We should care that we have a system that discriminates against those with preexisting conditions, the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.”
I agree 100%. My wife and I are in this boat if we try and get private insurance in the future when our income is higher and that scares me. But, this is also a red-herring (either that or it demonstrates a lack of understanding about the issue itself). The US Govt. can force private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, AND force them not to drop people who cost “to much.” This law wont cost the taxpayer a single penny in Govt. bureaucracy.

Do you also know Skye that in many states, the government prevents a person from carrying their insurer from one job to the next. It is the govt. that prevents insurance portability.

There are many practical and meaningful solutions to the problems with healthcare that don’t include a State run system. but do you understand why these solutions wont pass? Because politicians want power. Power over people. Power over their lives. Power to control things. I think those Christians who are in favor of a State run system (and I do realize you are on the fence here brother), have an inherent misunderstanding about why govt exists (not just in the US, but the systems of govt itself). If you care to read further, I offer you these couple links.
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/03/one-blood-many-governments.html
http://www.morethancake.org/2006/09/laws-demonstrate-immorality-not-goodness.html

You seem wiling to wait and see how the govt. runs GM before deciding on healthcare, but that is not the indicator you need to look at. Think about this, why is it that NOT ONE SINGLE PROPOSAL now before the US House or Senate mandates that our Congressman must lay aside their Gold Plated healthcare plan and move to this new Government system? Will Barack Obama get the same plan as me? If this solution is so wonderful, why is the political class not willing to receive healthcare under the same system they propose for all other Americans?

I judge leadership Skye by actions, not rhetoric. You write for a magazine on leadership. Is this the kind of leadership you value and put your faith in? Leadership that forces others to do what the Congress itself is unwilling to do? I trust and value leadership that says, “follow me” not leadership that says, “you jump first” How do you define leadership Skye?

Finally, I would suggest that any desire for a “system” that forces compassion is not compassion. For the Christian, the solution is not private insurance or state insurance. I think the solution lies with individuals and churches who must demonstrate compassion by caring for the sick. May I ask your indulgence to read this parable I wrote that expresses my own view on this issue?
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/09/a-parable-of-political-compassion.html

Wow, that got long. I am sure my post reads with a lot more judgement than I truly intend Skye–I fear it is a shortcoming of the intent and probably my own failings as a writer. My apologies in advance, but I do hope you will consider a reply.

Thanks and God bless.

So what do you say?   Is the Daisy Cutter Doctrine alive in well among the Christians who seek Big Government solutions instead of Kingdom solutions?

Skye Jethani

My friend Paula showed me a recent blog post from Skye Jethani where he writes about his “Daisy-Cutter Doctrine.” Jethani is the managing editor of Leadership Journal which is owned by Christianity Today International.

So what is this new Daisy Cutter Doctrine Jethani writes about? It is named after a military weapon designed to do intimidate the enemy with an explosion so massive, that their desire to fight is stripped away. Jethani allegorizes this weapon to the the approach many churches take toward missions. He relates his own experience with speakers at large conferences aimed at energizing the audience for the “big” mission of the Gospel. Jethani writes about these popular conference presenters this way…

Throughout the stump speech, the presenter will wax eloquent about the fate he or she foresees for the new generation of church leaders in the audience. “Your generation will do what mine could not.” “The young leaders in the church are leading the way by throwing off what’s come before.” “You will be the generation to change the world.” Convinced of their manifest destiny, the twenty-somethings will head off to breakout sessions where they will learn the skills to impact the world-usually from other twenty-somethings.

In my study of Church history, this generational bigotry has, in my opinion, been one of the biggest barriers to fulfilling God’s mission for the world. If we are going to really fulfill the Gospel mission, then it must be done by recognizing it is not the task of one “chosen” generation or one “chosen” leader. It is the task of all God’s saints working together in the unity and power of the Spirit. Jethani, goes on to explain why the Daisy Cutter Doctrine is so appealing.

The shock and awe approach to mission is extremely appealing to people shaped by consumerism. It taps into our consumer-oriented desire for big impact and feeds the assumption that large equals legit.

But there is a less incriminating [I think Jethani means "obvious" not "incriminating"] reason why we are attracted to the Daisy Cutter Doctrine-a big mission seems to logically demand a big strategy… So we ask, how does Coca-Cola impact the world? How does Disney impact the world? How does Starbucks impact the world? And we forget to ask the only question that really matters: How does Jesus impact the world?

…through much of its history the church in Europe employed conventional (worldly) means to advance its spiritual mission. This resulted in the gospel being spread by the sword. We now look back at the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the slaughter of native peoples in the Americas mournfully. Centuries removed from those atrocities we wonder-how could people do such things in the name of Christ? Did they not see how inconsistent those methods were with the ways of Jesus? At the time, of course, they did not.

Jethani makes an excellent point. Let me extend his comment. I believe that each generation has its own methods to fulfill the Gospel mission. Each generation has some inherent blind-spot which feeds the mistaken notion that their methods are the enlightened path to achieving God’s call. Cultural bias is one reason why we need the wisdom of every generation to overcome our blind-spots.

The implications of this “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” are huge for our time. Jethani rightly points out some flaws within the church in seeking to fulfill our Big Mission using Big Solutions from Big Corporations, but I think he also reflects one of the major blind-spots of our culture. Does this flaw reflect Jethani’s hypocrisy? Or is it simply his own generational bias? I will share the details of Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” in the next post and you can decide for yourself.

In the meantime, I want to leave you with a great quote from Phil Vischer of VeggieTales fame. Vischer’s blog is the newest link on my blogroll and his quote is the perfect shield against the Daisy Cutter Doctrine.

Let me know what you think of this interview and what other folks you would like to hear me interview.

I used to believe that preaching a 30-45 minute sermon on Sunday morning or night was the epitome of the Christian life. Now I believe that neither preaching nor listening to a sermon on Sunday morning should be the center of a Christian’s life. Instead, serving and loving others in the name of Christ is much more important. Plus, many times, a five minute personal exhortation is much more effective than a general sermon.

I never thought sermons were the center of the Christian universe or the penultimate of our faith. I do believe the sermon can be a positive outlet for those to whom the Spirit has given the gift of teaching and the sermon, in proper perspective, can be a great asset to the church Family.

I used to believe that leadership was the greatest type of service. Now I believe that service is the greatest type of service. However, I do believe that we should follow those who serve. But, those who serve are not so concerned about gathering followers. Instead, they are concerned with serving.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:20

One of my favorite college courses was Thermodynamics.  It was my strongest science class and–call me a geek–I still enjoy reading books on the stuff when I can.  One of the coolest parts of science is discovering how God reveals Himself through His creation.

Triple Point is the coexistence of all three phases in perfect equilibrium.

We stand under the sign of a decision constantly taken between the secularity and the sanctification of our existence, between sin and grace, between a being as man which forgets God, which is absolutely neutral in relation to Him and therefore absolutely hostile, and one which in His revelation is awakened by faith to being in the Church, to the appropriation of His promise.

Barth is clear, everyone has a choice to make; 

As a theological discipline dogmatics is the scientific self-examination of the Christian Church with respect to the content of its distinctive talk about God.

Now admittedly, that sounds boring to most folks, but I think there are some interesting aspects to what Barth is saying. I like his emphasis on theology as a function of the Church.  

• Actualism – Actual events of God’s action in history shape reality as we experience it. E.g., We understand history by how God has actually acted; we do not interpret how God has acted through a general theory of history.
• Particularism – The particular and concrete logically and theologically precedes the general and the abstract. E.g., the Incarnation in its unique particularity must inform the general nature of humanity; a general theory of humanity does not inform the particular nature of a human named Jesus
• Objectivism – Theological claims must be shaped by the object they seek to describe. E.g., God must be spoken of in terms of how he himself objectively presents himself (“reveals” himself) to us.
• Personalism – Knowledge of God is knowledge of God as one who is to be known as a “personal” being and not merely as a “control belief.”
• Realism – Language about God is based on Scriptural language that is neither “literalist” (theological language cannot be equated directly to God) nor “expressivist” (theological language is not merely that which is expressed when thinking about God), but a “real analogy” to God.
• Rationalism – the mystery of God can be coherently spoken of without needing to comprehend God; i.e., theology is a “rational wrestling with mystery.”

The Bible asserts that Jesus was both God and man, but how can this be true? How can an infinite God take on the finite matter of man? How can God die? How can God, who is Spirit, also be glorified as Christ in body?

The answer to all such questions is one simple word, mystery. No man can comprehend the infinite and completely foreign nature of God, our capacity is far too limited. Man can only embrace what God has condescended to reveal to us through his sovereign grace.

1. A missional church is a collection of disciples acting in concert to fulfill the mission of the Father.
2. A missional church finds Her* identity and vocation in being the Bride in waiting–sent by Jesus.
3. A missional church makes each individuals willing and ready to be Christ in their own situation and place.
4. A missional church knows She must be a cross-cultural (contextual) people and go out into Her community.
5. A missional church is engaged with the culture (in the world) without being absorbed by the culture (not of the world). She will become intentionally indigenous.
6. A missional church understands that God is already present in the surrounding culture. Therefore, Her goal is not to bring individuals into a sacred space, but introduces them to a sacred people.
7. A missional church is about being — being conformed to the image of God.
8. A missional church will seek to plant all types of missional communities.
9. A missional church is evangelistic and faithfully proclaims the gospel through word and deed. Words alone are not sufficient; how the gospel is embodied in our Family-life and service is equally important.
10. A missional church understands the power of the gospel and does not lose confidence in it.
11. A missional church will align Her activities around the mission of YHWH.
12. A missional church puts the good of their neighbor over Her own.
13. A missional church will demonstrate integrity, morality, good character, compassion, love and a resurrection life filled with hope so that She might lend credence to Her reasoned verbal witness.
14. A missional church practices hospitality by welcoming the stranger into the midst of community.
15. A missional church will see Herself as a Family on a mission together. There are no “Lone Ranger” Christians in a missional church.
16. A missional church will see Herself as a representative of Jesus and will do nothing to dishonor His name.
17. A missional church will be totally reliant on God in all She does. She will move beyond childlike faith to a life of supernatural living.
18. A missional church will be desperately dependent on prayer.
19. A missional church gathers for the purpose of worship, encouragement, supplemental teaching, training, to seek God’s presence and to be realigned with God’s missionary purpose.
20. A missional church is orthodox in Her view of the gospel and scripture, but culturally meaningful in Her methods and practice so that She can engage the world view of all who will listen.
21. A missional church will feed deeply on the scriptures throughout the week.
22. A missional church will be a community where all members are involved in learning “the way of Jesus.” Spiritual development is an expectation.
23. A missional church will help people discover and develop their Spirit-Giftings and will rely on gifted people for ministry instead of talented people.
24. A missional church is a healing community where people carry each other’s burdens and help restore gently.
25. A missional church requires that Her leaders be missiologists.

————–
* In reference to the church, I changed the terms “it”, “itself”, “themselves”, etc… to “Her” or “Herself”. I think this not only reflects a more biblical picture of church, but it also emphasizes the intimate nature of our existence as Christ’s Bride on earth. Quite frankly, I find the term “it” so impersonal that it flies in the face of what it means to be missional.