Martyrs

Lately I've been thinking about what martyrdom means. For many Christians, martyrdom is the ultimate way to show one's devotion to Christ. Kierkegaard says that unless we are willing to lay down our lives for Christ, we are not true Christians.
In the early parts of the Christian Church, there were many martyrs killed by the Roman Empire. These martyrs are widely looked up to for their courage and fidelity. Most became saints because of their martyrdom. The Emperors Domitian and Diocletian persecuted Christians openly and sent many to their deaths in grueling manners.
St Stephen is widely viewed as the first Christian martyr, and his death is recorded in the Book of Acts. Most of the Apostles were martyred. Peter was crucified upside-down. Paul was beheaded by Emperor Nero because he was a Roman Citizen.
With all the praise that goes to the Christian martyrs, it is also important to note that not every martyr's cause is a true cause.
Many unjust men and faulty causes have used martyrdom to prove correctness. Jim Jones thought that the fact that government was pursuing him proved that he was correct. Many suicide bombers and terrorists view their deaths as proving their point. The Heaven's Gate cult thought their suicides would bring them eternal joy on Hale's Comet. The arrest of Warren Jeffs only strengthened the FLDS Church's resolve.
In addition to this, what of the different martyrs from different faiths? There were the Christian martyrs, there were Jewish martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Buddhist martyrs, and Mormon martyrs. How do we reconcile so many martyrs with so many different faith traditions? Do we just look at the faith that has yielded the most martyrs?
I have heard that the Twentieth Century brought about the most Christian martyrs, especially with the wars that were fought and the genocides that occurred. How are the deaths of men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be compared with men like David Koresh?
We can look up to martyrs, but we cannot say that because somebody is a martyr, their faith is valid. Plenty of men have died for unworthy causes. Plenty have lived for worthy causes. Where we really need to look is not on the actual martyr, but on the cause that the martyr defended.

Pop Theology

Popular theology is an interesting concept, to be sure. Apparently it's not a real word--I've been marked down by theologians for using it in a paper. However, I will likely talk more about it in future posts, but I wished to introduce the idea in this post.
Pop theology is the act of laity theologizing. No, I don't mean trained professors or students who make it their life to study theology. Nor do I mean deacons who might be asked to deliver homilies at Mass. I mean to say that popular theology is the theology of the common man.
I have witnessed this very process several times in my life. The reason it is on my mind at present is that last night I listened to my parents discuss what they thought would occur during the Resurrection.
As far as I can tell, Mormons engage in popular theology more than any other religious groups. Generally, popular theology revolves around things of apocryphal or unclear natures. For example, the afterlife seems to be a huge topic of pop theology. So does Christ's atoning sacrifice.
I don't wish to discount all theological musings of the masses, but I can attest to the fact that it leads to a lot of confusion. There tends to be a large enough spectrum across theologians of the same faith tradition that with the popularization of theology, things only get more and more confusing. How can a non-believer understand what the faithful adhere to if they all follow separate theological ideologies?
In order to be able to properly engage in theological discussion, I believe it is necessary to be aware: first, of what your faith says on the doctrine; second, on what other faiths might say about it; and third, whether or not your specific theology does anything to help with the controversy; and finally, whether or not your specific belief is compatible with the doctrine specifically and your faith tradition overall.
What I mean to say is that there should be some basis for whatever theological discussion you wish to take up. The background is important, as are the intricacies of it.
If, however, we decide to engage in uninformed theological discussion, or preach half-baked theologies we only add to the confusion brewing between Creeds and, at worst, can lead to the kind of disastrous faith traditions that men like David Koresh and Jim Jones started.