Penguin sex, flaming liberalism, living with the hippies ... ahhh, Donald Miller
I've continued reading up on the Emerging Church Movement and decided to chug through two of Donald Miller's most popular works: Searching for God Knows What (SFGKW) and Blue Like Jazz (BLJ). BLJ is more widely read, so I will spend most of my time on it.
I want to challenge the reader to ask those who have read BLJ this question: What is the point of BLJ? I'd be interested to know their answer, because I am having trouble answering it myself. It appears that each chapter is completely disconnected from the next, as if each chapter were its own book. The subtitle is most revealing: "Nonreligious thoughts on Christian spirituality." That subtitle bother anyone? Me too. I'd like to ask Miller how one can have nonreligious thoughts on Christian spirituality? It seems to me that Christian spirituality is religious by nature? Oh well, maybe that's just me.
So yea, BLJ gets to his chapter on faith. Amidst the disconnected ideas, Miller compares faith to penguin sex! Don't believe me? Here it is:
""You know what really helped me understand why I believe in Jesus, Tony?"
"What's that?"
"Penguins," I told him.
"Penguins?"
"Penguins," I clarified. "Do you know very much about penguins?"
"Nope." Tony smiled. "Tell me about penguins."
"I watched a nature show on OPB the other night about penguins. They travel in enormous groups ...But after a while they stop sliding, and they get around in a big circle and start making noises. And what they are doing is looking for a mate. It's crazy. It's like a penguin nightclub or something--like a disco. They waddle around on the dance floor till they find a mate."
"Then what?" Tony asked, sort of laughing.
"Penguin sex," I said.
Penguin sex?"
"Yes. Penguin sex. Right there on television. I felt like I was watching animal porn."
"What was it like?" he asked.
"Less than exciting," I told him. "Sort of a letdown."
"So what does penguins having sex have to do with belief in God?" Tony asked.
"Well, I am getting to that. But let me tell you what else they do. First, the females lay eggs. ... Then, the females give the males the eggs. ... They do this for an entire month. ... Then the females come back, and right when they do, almost to the day, the eggs are hatched. The females somehow know, even though they have never had babies before, the exact day to go back to the males. And that is how baby penguins are made."
"Very interesting." Tony clapped for me. "So what is the analogy here?"
"I don't know, really. It's just that I identified with them. I know it sounds crazy, but as I watched I felt like I was one of those penguins. They have this radar inside them that told them when and where to go and none of it made any sense, but they show up on the very day their babies are being born, and the radar always turns out to be right. I have a radar inside me that says to believe in Jesus. Somehow, penguin radar leads them perfectly well. Maybe it isn't so foolish that I follow the radar that is inside of me."" (Miller. Blue Like Jazz. Pgs. 55-57).
Umm, yea. The divine faith that is given to believers is being compared to penguin sex. Wonderful (sense the sarcasm). Can we say, "sacriligious."
Politics. What a shame that I even have to mention politics while writing about Donald Miller's works. But considering the great deal he's written expressing his political views, I feel that politics plays a major role in these books. Miller may not officially affiliate with any one political party. In any case, he might as well sign up for the Democratic Party. He is a liberal. A flaming liberal. Throughout both of his books one can sense his animosity towards conservative evangelicals, especially Republicans. Here are some select quotes:
"Nadine explained to Penny why she was a Christian. She said that she believed Christ was a revolutionary, a humanitarian of sorts, sent from God to a world that had broken itself. Penny was frustrated that Nadine was a Christian. She couldn't believe that a girl this kind and accepting could subscribe to the same religion that generated the Crusades, fund the Republicans, or fathered religious television." (Miller. Blue Like Jazz. Pgs. 45-46).
"All great Christian leaders are simple thinkers. Andrew doesn't cloak his altruism within a trickle-down economic theory that allows him to spend fifty dollars on a round of golf to feed the economy and provide jobs for the poor. He actually believes that when Jesus says feed the poor, He means you should do this directly." (Miller. Blue Like Jazz. Pg. 110).
"And yet another thing about the churches I went to: They seemed to be parrots for the Republican party. Do we have to tow the party line on every single issue? Are the Republicans that perfect? I just felt like, in order to be a part of the family, I had to think George W. Bush was Jesus. And I didn't think that Jesus really agreed with a lot of the policies of the republican party or for that matter the Democratic party. I felt like Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. I heard my pastor say once, when there were only a few of us standing around, that he hated Bill Clinton. I can understand not liking Clinton's policies, but I want my spirituality to rid me of hate, not give me reason for it. I couldn't deal with that. That is one of the main reasons I walked away. I felt like, by going to this particular church, I was a pawn for the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Republicans did not give a crap about the causes of Christ." (Miller. Blue Like Jazz. Pgs. 131-132).
Okay, this next quote is long, but worth the read (trust me):
"In his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken included a provocative multipage comic strip about a man named Supply-Side Jesus. In the strip, Supply-Side Jesus walks through the streets of Jerusalem stating that people should start businesses so they can employ the poor and should purchase exotic and expensive clothes and jewelry so their money will trickle in the economy and, eventually, bring bread to the mouths of the starving. In the comic, the disciples come to Supply-Side Jesus and say they want to feed the poor directly, but Supply-Side Jesus says no, that if you give money or food or water directly to the poor, you are only helping them in their laziness and increasing the welfare state. Eventually, Rome catches up with Supply-Side Jesus and, before an angry mob, Pontius Pilate asks the masses which man they want to crucify, Supply-Side Jesus or another man who, in the comic, stands beside Pilate humbly, a disheveled and shadowy figure. The crowd chants they want to free Supply-Side Jesus because they like his philosophies, and they want to crucify this other man, the shadowy figure standing next to Pilate. Pilate tells the crowd this other man is innocent, that he has done no wrong, but the crowd refuses to listen and instead chants, "Crucify him, crucify him." Pilate then lets Supply-Side Jesus go free, and orders the innocent man, whose name was Jesus of Nazareth, to be crucified. I sat there reading the book at Horse Brass Pub in amazement. Here was Al Franken, a known liberal who often lambastes the conservative Christian right but who also, somehow, understands the difference between the Jesus the religious right worships and the Jesus presented in Scripture. One Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory, the other through the Gospels." (Miller. Searching for God Knows What. Pg. 192).
WOW. I will be honest, when I read that for the first time I was furious. It angers me to hear a professing believer in Christ Jesus spouting out such utter nonsense. Donald Miller threw down his gloves with this statement. His true colors come out. First off, he quotes from Al Franken, a major lib. Secondly, the example he cites from Franken, this pathetic excuse for a comic strip, pokes fun of the "Christian right" for holding to the Trickle-Down view of economics. Let me correct Franken and Miller quickly as well: Trickle-Down economics does not forbid private citizens for helping individuals (rather, it encourages it!!!). What the Trickle-Down economic theory does believe is that the government should not give money to the poor (as a general/regular rule), but should give money back to the economy so businesses can create more jobs, which allows those employees to spend money which circulates back into the economy thus spurring the economy on even more! But crazy liberal Democrats like Al Franken, or Donald Miller want a quick fix and believe in Socialism. Donald Miller, NEWS FLASH: we live in a Democratic Republic, not a Socialistic economy. Miller ought to move to Canada or Germany.
Miller then asks how the Jesus of Socialism (Miller's Jesus (since he started with the labels)) was twisted around by the Republicans. He answers his question by stating: "My only answer is that Satan is crafty indeed." (193). WHOA nelly! Apprently Satan is the reason Christians since the Reformation have embraced less government involvement in the lives of its citizens.
Miller's next statement is absolutely hilarious. I kid you not, I was bustin' a gut when I read the next short paragraph: "I realize there are people reading this who will automatically dismiss me as a theological liberal, but I do not believe a person can take two issues from Scripture, those being abortion and gay marriage, and adhere to them as sins, then neglect much of the rest and call himself a fundamentalist or even a conservative." (193). LOL. Alrighty. Thanks for sharing. Oh and Miller, you're right. Your misrepresentations and inconsistencies have caused me to dismiss you as a theological and political liberal.
Another one of Miller's anecdotes describes his month-long adventure living with the pot-smoking hippies. He abandoned his local church and moved out to the woods to live with hippies. He later explains how the love he received from the hippies was much more than what he received from the Church. Miller writes,
"I was even more amazed when I realized I preferred, in fact, the company of the hippies to the company of Christians. It isn't that I didn't love my Christian friends or that they didn't love me, it was just that there was something different about my hippie friends; something, I don't know, more real, more true. I realize that is a provocative statement, but I only felt I could be myself around them, and I could not be myself with my Christian friends. My Christian communitities had always had little unwritten social ethics like don't cuss and don't support Democrats and don't ask tough questions about the Bible. ... I had discovered life outside the church, and I liked it. As I said, I preferred it." (Miller. Blue Like Jazz. Pg. 210).
Hrmmmm, does anything need to be said? =)
Much more could be said of Miller's works; this will do for now. Perhaps if I write an article on the Emerging Church Movement I will reference Miller's books again. I am thankful I am finished with Donald Miller's work. Like Mark Driscoll, Miller writes to an immature audience, with course language and silly stories to fill the pages (though to be fair, Driscoll's Radical Reformission cannot compare with the lows of Miller's writings) and of course, Emerging Church ideals.
To summarize, I feel that both of Donald Miller's books are a complete waste. It saddens me that so many Christians are able to turn off their discernment radar while reading Blue Like Jazz, and yet I know that the Lord is at work in His people. My prayer is that the Spirit will drive those being influenced by Emerging Church authors (Miller, Driscol, and others) back to the Scirptures to examine Miller by the Scriptures.
*As a by-product of Miller's book, he is overly paranoid and leaves his lightsaber extended, ready for attack*
RustySith
posted by rustypth @ 4:14 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Great post, rusty. Keep it up! (and thanks for saving me the bother of wading through those books for the moment)
I've been reading Miller's "Searching for God Knows What" (SFGKW) to try and see what he's talking about. My wife has been reading it with me.
Her comment is: "he's almost funny, but I just don't find him compelling." That's from a woman that almost never can put down a book once she starts it -- but this one she put down.
My comments are this:
(1) Stop stealing my blog ideas :-)
(2) Miller is, at best, a person who (ignorantly) reads everything as having equal value, and at worst, a person with an agenda which seeks to level the intellectual playing field by lulling the reader into believing nothing is more important than anything else -- except for Miller's own personal conclusions.
I didn't read "Blue Like Jazz". I gave SFGKW a chance, and while there were some intellectually-offensive statements in that book (like the place where he intimates that there is no real distinction between fiction and non-fiction, or the multiple times he says that modern Christianity is about "lists" and not about establishing the right relationship between God and man), his willingness to say things like "the Christian life is like Penguin sex" is clearly lower than in BLJ.
Good post. Who knew that Al Franken was in charge of the definition of Christian morality?
Hey Casey,
While I'm not Miller's number one fan, I was a little shocked at some of your criticisms. I especially think that Miller's points on mixing politics with Christianity are extremely relevant right now. I visited a small group on Friday where the leader made a snide joke about Bill Clinton's administration almost as reflexively as if he were quoting scripture. It made me feel sick to think that he automatically assumed we were all Christians of the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News variety. I doubt that Miller's point in BLJ was to insult conservatives or sell liberal ideologies; he's merely trying to show how party politics aren't "core' to our relationship with Christ, which is a major problem for a lot of people in the church these days. And while Miller is probably not as conservative as most Christians in Arizona, he probably isn’t a ‘flaming liberal’ either. Even though he quoted Al Franken, he didn’t endorse his politics, and I think that you missed his point, which had more to do with criticizing people who use Jesus as a political prop than with economic theory.
As for the penguin sex... c'mon man, it seems like you're presupposing that 1) sex is dirty (even among penguins), and 2) all of our allegories about faith have to be flowery and G-rated. Miller talks like real people, which sometimes include sarcasm, irony, and theological statements that don’t have perfect ivory-tower sheen. Yeah, he might write about living with hippies (you're really guilty of taking that quote out of context), leaving the church (he comes back, by the way), and being dissatisfied with the Christian subculture, but he's put into writing how a great deal of young people feel about the modern American church, and he’s confronting some real issues that are rarely talked about in the church.
Sometimes I think that Miller goes a little too far in lambasting Christians, sometimes he seems to over-glorify his bohemian lifestyle, and sometimes his writing style gets a little old, but I do think that his points are often valid when it comes to his thoughts on modern Christian culture. In a market flooded with horrible Christian literature (say what you want, but Miller’s critique in the first chapter of SFGKW is as funny as it is true) it’s refreshing to see someone who wants to pursue Jesus with so much honesty. I wouldn’t dismiss this book so easily. It may not be best written or most profound book of our generation, but its being embraced by a large number of people who are overjoyed to see a Christian author who writes what they’ve been secretly wondering about for so long.
Isaac,
Wuzzup dog? Man, it's been a while eh? Hope things are going well. Give me a call sometime and we'll chill 200 8085 (cell).
And now, in response to your post ...
You wrote: "I especially think that Miller's points on mixing politics with Christianity are extremely relevant right now. I visited a small group on Friday where the leader made a snide joke about Bill Clinton's administration almost as reflexively as if he were quoting scripture. It made me feel sick to think that he automatically assumed we were all Christians of the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News variety. I doubt that Miller's point in BLJ was to insult conservatives or sell liberal ideologies; he's merely trying to show how party politics aren't 'core' to our relationship with Christ, which is a major problem for a lot of people in the church these days."
Of course, citing Clinton, Bush or any President as some authority equal to Scripture is something I would disagree with. Regarding Miller's comments about the fact that most Evangelical Christians in our nation belong to the Republican party, he is absolutely correct. From a purely historical perspective most Protestants have been fiscally and morally conservative. Today the vast majority of Christians lean to the political right side of things. Now Miller raises the question: Should Christians lean one way or the other? Miller very plainly states his fiscal views in SFGKW on page 192 (cited in this blog entry), a view which mocks conservatives, and upholds the liberal perspective. Also on page 192 we have a distinction made between "Supply Side Jesus" and "Jesus the innocent man" (the latter was crucified by the political right). We see this from the last few sentences of the quote on page 192: "Here was Al Franken, a known liberal who often lambastes the conservative Christian right but who also, somehow, understands the difference between the Jesus the religious right worships and the Jesus presented in Scripture. One Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory, the other through the Gospels." Here is a clear statement of Miller endorsing Al Franken's distinction between the Jesus of the "radical right" (aka the vast majority of Christians in our land) and the Jesus of the Bible (in Franken's comic strip, this refers to the Jesus of the class warfare party).
It made you sick that Miller autormatically assumed that most American Christians lean to the political right? Why, might I ask? Fiscally speaking, conservatives are for lesser government, lower taxes, and a balanced budget - all things which are Biblically defensible. Morally speaking, conservatives are against abortion, homosexuality, feminism, socialism/communism, the destruction of religious expression in the public sphere, and the list goes on - again, all things Biblically defensible. It seems that Miller has not done his homework or used much common sense when considering how one's worldview affects one's view of politics. Maybe Miller has forgotten that our nation has a two party system at the present time, and for those of us who want to allow our votes to have some impact, we choose the lesser of two evils: the Republican Party. Yes, there are many things I disagree with many Republicans about, even George W. BUT, at least in the Republican Party, Christian values are represented, as opposed to the Democratic Party that is against the very core of Christianity. Democrats hide under the guise of wanting to help the poor, the underdogs in our society. They have used this platform for far too long. It's time for Dems to wake up and smell the Starbucks coffee =), their platform of class warfare and playing the race card won't work much longer. Most liberals, like Miller, have fallen prey to the lie that it is the government's job to fix all of society's problems. I'd like to ask Miller what he believes to be the Chruch's responsibility to help the needy in society? Next, I'd ask Miller what he believes is society's responsibility in helping the needy? (Please note the distinction between society, and the government).
I am proud that the sons and daughters of the Reformation have held to fiscal and moral conservative values. For more on this, I'll let history tell the tale =)
You wrote: "And while Miller is probably not as conservative as most Christians in Arizona, he probably isn’t a ‘flaming liberal’ either. Even though he quoted Al Franken, he didn’t endorse his politics, and I think that you missed his point, which had more to do with criticizing people who use Jesus as a political prop than with economic theory."
Donald Miller reveals his true colors in a quote (included in this entry) found in BLJ found on page 131-132: "And yet another thing about the churches I went to: They seemed to be parrots for the Republican party. Do we have to tow the party line on every single issue? Are the Republicans that perfect? I just felt like, in order to be a part of the family, I had to think George W. Bush was Jesus. And I didn't think that Jesus really agreed with a lot of the policies of the republican party or for that matter the Democratic party. I felt like Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. I heard my pastor say once, when there were only a few of us standing around, that he hated Bill Clinton. I can understand not liking Clinton's policies, but I want my spirituality to rid me of hate, not give me reason for it. I couldn't deal with that. That is one of the main reasons I walked away. I felt like, by going to this particular church, I was a pawn for the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Republicans did not give a crap about the causes of Christ." Please notice the last sentence. Yea. In the entirety of both of Miller's works, not once did he say anything positive at all about the Republican Party. "Meanwhile, the Republicans did not give a crap about the causes of Christ." Hmmm. Oh really? I, do not give a crap about the causes of Christ? My elders do not give a crap about the causes of Christ? My family, and my friends do not give a crap about the causes of Christ? Wow. I'm glad Miller is here to tell us these things. Sure, Miller gives lip service to the idea that "oooooh, Christians aren't to cling to any political party," but what we do see, consistently in these two books, are statements saying that Dems have it correct fiscally, and that abortion, homosexuality, feminism and other moral issues aren't that important anyways. One wonders if Miller would be willing to stand for anything but anti-war movements and the further promotion of class warfare?
Miller didn't endorse Franken's statement? ... I would like you to please re-read the long quote from SFGKW where Miller relates to us a silly comic strip by Al Franken: "In his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken included a provocative multipage comic strip about a man named Supply-Side Jesus. In the strip, Supply-Side Jesus walks through the streets of Jerusalem stating that people should start businesses so they can employ the poor and should purchase exotic and expensive clothes and jewelry so their money will trickle in the economy and, eventually, bring bread to the mouths of the starving. In the comic, the disciples come to Supply-Side Jesus and say they want to feed the poor directly, but Supply-Side Jesus says no, that if you give money or food or water directly to the poor, you are only helping them in their laziness and increasing the welfare state. Eventually, Rome catches up with Supply-Side Jesus and, before an angry mob, Pontius Pilate asks the masses which man they want to crucify, Supply-Side Jesus or another man who, in the comic, stands beside Pilate humbly, a disheveled and shadowy figure. The crowd chants they want to free Supply-Side Jesus because they like his philosophies, and they want to crucify this other man, the shadowy figure standing next to Pilate. Pilate tells the crowd this other man is innocent, that he has done no wrong, but the crowd refuses to listen and instead chants, "Crucify him, crucify him." Pilate then lets Supply-Side Jesus go free, and orders the innocent man, whose name was Jesus of Nazareth, to be crucified. I sat there reading the book at Horse Brass Pub in amazement. Here was Al Franken, a known liberal who often lambastes the conservative Christian right but who also, somehow, understands the difference between the Jesus the religious right worships and the Jesus presented in Scripture. One Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory, the other through the Gospels." (Miller. Searching for God Knows What. Pg. 192). Here we have a discussion where Miller recounts a comic strip by Al Franken. In this discussion we see the labeling of the Republican's "Supply-Side Jesus" and the liberal's Jesus who was crucified. We have Supply-Side Jesus being mocked, then released in the place of Barrabas (obviously making him out to be a criminal). Now, if you notice the last two sentences of this quote, you will notice Miller's complete and total endorsement of Franken's views on this subject. Miller believes that "one Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory, the other through the Gospels." In other words, Conservatives remake Jesus to suit their political gains, while the Democrats embrace the Jesus of Scripture? Heh. Alrighty then. If one truly believes, as Miller does, such complete foolishness, he must ignore much of the Old and New Testaments as well as the basics of politics and common sense.
You wrote: "As for the penguin sex... c'mon man, it seems like you're presupposing that 1) sex is dirty (even among penguins), and 2) all of our allegories about faith have to be flowery and G-rated. Miller talks like real people, which sometimes include sarcasm, irony, and theological statements that don’t have perfect ivory-tower sheen."
Stating your conclusions that I have presupposed that "sex is dirty (even among penguins)" does not make your point. You need to make and defend an argument to prove a point, not simply state your conclusions. So I ask you then, where in this blog entry did I communicate that sex is "dirty?" Furthermore, it is completely unfair of you, after basically not seeing or talking to me in four years to assume that I believe sex is dirty. Why do I say this? Because you don't know my views about sex. You don't know if I think sex is something pure and holy. You just don't know. If you knew me better, you would know that I believe the Bible teaches a great deal about sex. One of the things I believe the Scriptures teach us on this subject is that sex is good, and not a dirty thing. Now what did I actually write? "Umm, yea. The divine faith that is given to believers is being compared to penguin sex. Wonderful (sense the sarcasm). Can we say, "sacriligious."" If you are able to somehow draw from these few remarks that I believe sex is dirty, you have a greater ability to interpret the meaning of words, grammar and syntax than I could ever possess. You will not find in these twenty four words, anywhere, that could even remotely be understood to mean that sex is dirty. I believe my point was clear, but I will repeat myself: The divine faith that is given to believers is being compared to penguin sex. How callous. How careless. How irreverent. So Donald Miller wants to communicate to immature high school and college students - fine. But honestly, if you are in a position to teach, how can you not treat such subjects as the divine faith given to the Christian with respect. With a little awe.
Next, you allege that I presuppose that "all of our allegories about faith have to be flowery and G-rated." "Flowery and G-rated"? I haven't a clue what this means. If you mean that we ought to honor Christ and His Gospel, then by all means, indeed!
You wrote: "Yeah, he might write about living with hippies (you're really guilty of taking that quote out of context), leaving the church (he comes back, by the way),"
Again, you make an accusation, then make no attempt to defend your statement. Because you have not told me HOW or WHERE I have taken Miller out of context, I am not sure how to respond to this non-argument =). Let me provide Miller's entire quote (included in this blog entry): "I was even more amazed when I realized I preferred, in fact, the company of the hippies to the company of Christians. It isn't that I didn't love my Christian friends or that they didn't love me, it was just that there was something different about my hippie friends; something, I don't know, more real, more true. I realize that is a provocative statement, but I only felt I could be myself around them, and I could not be myself with my Christian friends. My Christian communitities had always had little unwritten social ethics like don't cuss and don't support Democrats and don't ask tough questions about the Bible. ... I had discovered life outside the church, and I liked it. As I said, I preferred it." (Miller. Blue Like Jazz. Pg. 210). There's the quote. How this is "out of context," I am not told.
Yes, Miller moved into the woods for a month (pg. 210), leaving his church. I do not believe that living with hippies while they smoke pot is what one of Christ's servants ought to do. Jeeze, you can't even preach the Gospel while they're high on pot! His time there was a complete waste, unless he learned that leaving your church to spend time exclusively with the unregenerate is a bad bad idea. I wonder if Miller is familiar with Hebrews 10:23-25, "23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." A Biblical view of the local church is one where members in the congregation submit to the elders (Hebrews 13:17) allowing them to watch over the souls in their flock. Miller did not allow his elders to do this.
You wrote: "and being dissatisfied with the Christian subculture, but he's put into writing how a great deal of young people feel about the modern American church, and he’s confronting some real issues that are rarely talked about in the church."
What churches aren't talking about politics, sex, Christianity, etc? My church does. I know of many churches that preach the whole counsel of God. Sure, there are many churches in our land that are afraid to talk about politics, about sex, Christianity ... but those same churches more likely than not, likewise do not discuss the Solas of the Reformation, the Trinity, personal holiness and sanctification, the purpose and functions of the local church.
You wrote: "I wouldn’t dismiss this book so easily. It may not be best written or most profound book of our generation, but its being embraced by a large number of people who are overjoyed to see a Christian author who writes what they’ve been secretly wondering about for so long."
I agree with you there. Miller is hardly profound or thought-provoking. Yes, Miller's works are being embraced in great numbers, along with many other works in the Emerging Church Movement. Like all fads, the Emerging Church Movement will die because it is lacking in meaningful exegesis from the text of Scripture. The attempts to become "relevant" to our culture by conforming our churches (having pastors cuss, for example) will leave these Emerging Churches without a foundation upon which to stand. Trials, persecutions, and even the test of time will wash these churches away, along with the sandy ground they were built upon. Christians do not need mushy-gushy, pointless books to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. They need to study the Scriptures, first and foremost. Next, they ought to study the Gospel, the Solas, the Trinity, holiness, mercy ... not to mention the host of wonderfully rich and edifying books out there.
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
Amen.
Thanks for your comment dude. Hobos unite =)
In Christ, who is Lord of all,
Case of Base
Casey,
I will agree with you 100% that the Republican platform generally has a more biblically grounded worldview. However, I think that Donald Miller makes two really good points about the subject of politics and Christianity.
First off, Christians shouldn't be "parrots" for any political party.
Secondly, Christians and politicians shouldn’t use Jesus as a political prop.
If someone wants to be a parrot for a political party, that’s their decision, but when they start to equate their party with Christianity we have a problem. This goes for my Christian coworker in college who explained to me on numerous occasions how Jesus endorsed Socialism, just as it goes for the aforementioned bible-study leader who didn’t flinch while verbally attacking Bill Clinton’s presidency during our study.
While Al Franken’s analogy is not exactly…um…scriptural, he does make an interesting point. Even a non-Christian like Franken understands that Jesus should never be used as a political prop, which is a sin that goes back to Jesus own lifetime. I think you might be reading too much into Miller’s point when you say that, according to him, “…democrats embrace the Jesus of Scripture.” I don’t think that Miller is making an either/or statement. He is not saying that Republicans have an incorrect view of Jesus; therefore Democrats must have a correct view. I think that he’s trying to say that even an unbeliever like Al Franken can see that using Jesus as a party tool is wrong. Also, I think that it’s safe to say that Miller is using Franken to be provocative. I think that Miller went out of his way to use Franken because he epitomizes the type of liberal that most Christians dismiss outright. Miller’s point may have been less sharp had he quoted William J. Bennett.
Casey, I have to assume that you still think that sex is raunchy! After all the nice things that you wrote about sex, and how it’s a beautiful thing, you still came to the conclusion that comparing something holy to sex is “callous, careless, and irreverent.” Once again, I think that you’re presupposing that penguin sex is somehow “low-brow” or disgusting. Miller was comparing the natural instinct of penguins to the moving of the Holy Spirit in believers. Yeah, you might not find that in a John Piper book, and yes, it is provocative, but is he in error? I don’t think so.
Also, I don’t think that Miller is recommending that people move off into the woods and live with pot-smoking hippies. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like he was relating that personal story for two reasons:
1. To show how the modern church is failing at being a loving community that accepts and cares for one another. Miller mentions how the people in the hippie community seemed so loving and non-judgmental, and how they genuinely cared for one another. I’m guessing that a lot of this had to do with the large amounts of pot that they were smoking, and Miller admits that they fell short of loving the way that Jesus wanted us to love one another, but the point here is that when Miller compared his experiences in the church with his time spent with the hippies, he personally felt that the modern church was somehow not fulfilling God’s intended plan for true community.
2. To show how, despite its imperfections, the church is God’s community for believers, and separating yourself from the church is mutually unbeneficial. After the time spent in the forest with the hippies, Miller eventually rejoins the church and comes to terms with some of his misgivings about the Christian community.
Once again, I think Miller is being provocative for a reason. Hippies are not often used to bring home a point about Christian community. If you can get past the internal alarms that sound when someone is trying to pull Christian truth out of his time in a hippie commune, I think that Miller’s point is very relevant. A lot of modern Christian churches simply don’t show love very well, and their members don’t care for one another the way they should. The way that Miller communicates this truth is up for debate, but I think that it’s too easy to criticize his methods without taking a glance at his underlying theme.
Once again, I don’t endorse Miller, and I think that his writing is best for a certain type of Christian reader: a mature believer who is questioning their place in the church and who may be feeling alienated and out of place among believers. Miller can be annoying and sometimes he reminds me waaaaay too much of the sun-baked, light-weight philosophy that I heard while living in Flagstaff, but I think that he has a few good points that should not be so easily dismissed. He’s a breath of fresh air for those who are tired of pseudo-churchy answers to their deep and sincere questions.
That being said, I’ve enjoyed hearing what you have to say about it. And yes, we should hang out sometime.
Hobos live forever,
isaac
Isaac,
Thanks for the quick reply.
You wrote: "However, I think that Donald Miller makes two really good points about the subject of politics and Christianity. First off, Christians shouldn't be "parrots" for any political party. Secondly, Christians and politicians shouldn’t use Jesus as a political prop. If someone wants to be a parrot for a political party, that’s their decision, but when they start to equate their party with Christianity we have a problem. This goes for my Christian coworker in college who explained to me on numerous occasions how Jesus endorsed Socialism, just as it goes for the aforementioned bible-study leader who didn’t flinch while verbally attacking Bill Clinton’s presidency during our study."
First off, here's the quote from Miller: ""And yet another thing about the churches I went to: They seemed to be parrots for the Republican party. Do we have to tow the party line on every single issue? Are the Republicans that perfect? I just felt like, in order to be a part of the family, I had to think George W. Bush was Jesus." According to Miller, being a parrot for the Republican party = towing the party line on every single issue. I don't know many churches who do this. My church doesn't. No Christian I know does this. I have to ask then, who is Miller referring to? Miller answers this for us: "I felt like, by going to this particular church, I was a pawn for the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Republicans did not give a crap about the causes of Christ." Miller felt like he was being coerced to believe "Bush was Jesus" at this particular church. He felt that he was a "pawn for the Republicans." And then there is the statement that you have thus far refused to interact with: "Meanwhile, the Republicans did not give a crap about the causes of Christ." Let me get this straight: Miller's church were parrots for the Republican party ... If you were not a Republican, you wouldn't fit in at this particular church ... This church was trying to make Miller a pawn for the Republican party ... Oh, and by the way, Republicans don't give a crap about the causes of Christ. That's a lot to swallow.
My question for you is: what does it mean to use Jesus as a political prop? Do you mean by this that they just throw the name of Christ around, as if to take God's name in vain? Is quoting Christ or the Scriptures an abuse in the political realm? Are you suggesting that one's worldview does not and/or should not affect one's political views?
Who equates their political party with Christianity? I have never met these people. Never in my entire life. Considering that I know Christians from all over the world, from many of the mainline denominations (and non-denominations *grin*), I have never once met a Christian who equates their political party with Christianity.
Maybe we should ask Miller if he meant that the Christians at this particular church actually expected him to believe "Bush was Jesus"? Is Miller being sarcastic here? Let's hope so. And if Miller was being sarcastic here, then doesn't this destroy your entire argument that "when they start to equate their party with Christianity we have a problem"?
As for your co-worker who believes that Jesus endorsed Socialism/Communism, he must not be able to exegete his way out of a paper bag =). The pastor who said that he "hated Bill Clinton," this is obviously wrong. But again, I do not believe that most Republican pastors or Republican Christians, hate any Democrats. I have sharp disagreements with our Democratic countrymen, but this doesn't have to spew into hatred. I must ask then, is Miller trying to paint a broad brush that all or most Republican pastors hate Democrats (or Democratic presidents)? I will be gracious once more and assume that this is not what Miller meant. If I am correct, then why in the world did Miller even include such a statement? If the vast majority of Christians are Republicans, and if the greater majority of Republicans don't hate Bill Clinton, why even bring this up? We are not told.
You wrote: "While Al Franken’s analogy is not exactly…um…scriptural, he does make an interesting point. Even a non-Christian like Franken understands that Jesus should never be used as a political prop, which is a sin that goes back to Jesus own lifetime."
Was it Miller's purpose, in recalling this rediculous comic strip by Franken, to show that even unbelievers understand that Jesus should not be used as a political prop? Well, I believe that Miller tells us: "Here was Al Franken, a known liberal who often lambastes the conservative Christian right but who also, somehow, understands the difference between the Jesus the religious right worships and the Jesus presented in Scripture. One Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory, the other through the Gospels." Here we have a clear and direct statement by Miller that Franken "understands the difference between the Jesus the religious right worships and the Jesus presented in Scripture." Donald Miller makes a clear distinction between two Jesus's here: (1) the Jesus the religious right worships; and (2) the Jesus presented in Scripture. So then, the Jesus the religious right worships is not the Jesus presented in Scripture. Next, Miller strongly endorses Franken's comic strip analogy when he said: "One Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory, the other through the Gospels." There is a dichotomy being presented here: (1) One Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory; (2) the other through the Gospels. Therefore, the Republicans' view of Jesus, understood through conservative economic theory is not the Jesus taught through the Gospels (of the liberal left). Where does Miller state on page 192 of SFGKW that "Jesus should not be used as a political prop"? Where in the context of Miller's discussion on page 192 does he even allude to the concept you've presented? I cannot find it, because it isn't on page 192. Are you inserting this foreign concept so that Miller wouldn't be saying what he plainly says on page 192?
You wrote: "I think you might be reading too much into Miller’s point when you say that, according to him, “…democrats embrace the Jesus of Scripture.”"
Here is the entirety of my statement: "Miller believes that "one Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory, the other through the Gospels." In other words, Conservatives remake Jesus to suit their political gains, while the Democrats embrace the Jesus of Scripture?" My point is clear: in the context of Franken's labeling two Christ's (the Jesus of conservative economic theory, and the Jesus taught through Scripture), Republicans remake Christ to fit their view of economics, while the Democrats accept the Biblical account of Christ. Furthermore, Miller is the one who plainly states: "the difference between the Jesus the religious right worships and the Jesus presented in Scripture. One Jesus is understood through conservative economic theory, the other through the Gospels." When Miller refers to the Jesus understood through conservative economic theory, who in the political sphere believes this? Answer: Republicans (or conservatives). When Miller refers to the Jesus presented in Scripture, who in the political sphere believes in this Jesus? Answer: the Democrats (or liberals). So then, if the Republicans believe in the Jesus of conservative economic theory, and the Democratis believe in the Jesus taught by the Scriptures, according to Franken's analogy recalled by Miller, who believes in the Jesus of the Bible? Answer: the Democrats. Therefore, you are incorrect, I have not read anything into Miller's statements. I have attempted to allow Miller to speak for himself.
You wrote: "Casey, I have to assume that you still think that sex is raunchy! After all the nice things that you wrote about sex, and how it’s a beautiful thing, you still came to the conclusion that comparing something holy to sex is “callous, careless, and irreverent.” Once again, I think that you’re presupposing that penguin sex is somehow “low-brow” or disgusting."
I wonder how carefully you read my response? Here is what I said: "I believe my point was clear, but I will repeat myself: The divine faith that is given to believers is being compared to penguin sex. How callous. How careless. How irreverent. So Donald Miller wants to communicate to immature high school and college students - fine. But honestly, if you are in a position to teach, how can you not treat such subjects as the divine faith given to the Christian with respect. With a little awe." Again, I challenged you to interact with the 24 words I originally wrote to prove your point that I believe sex is dirty. You have chosen not to do this. Perhaps you realized you could not interpret my words to mean that "sex is dirty" after all? Be that as it may, you seem to have completely, utterly missed my point. What I have not said, anywhere, is that sex is "dirty," or "raunchy" or impure. My point all along has been that to compare sex with the divine faith given to the believer is irreverent. Why do I say this? I thought it was pretty obvious ... apprently not. I will be plain: sex has it's proper place of discussion, within a proper context. I do not believe it is appropriate to go around screaming from the rooftops about "animal porn" (Miller. Blue Like Jazz. Pg. 56). However, there is a time and a place to talk about sex, be that animal sex, or human sexuality. But to compare penguin sex to the faith given to Christians demonstrates a complete lack of maturity to understand the beginnings of politeness and appropriateness. For those who think it's funny to compare sex to faith, I would simply ask why? Because penguins are wired to have sex and take care of their unhatched young ones, is this anything to compare to the faith we receive after the regeneration of the Spirit? Frankly, Isaac, if you cannot understand this, I'm not sure what to tell you. Miller writes carelessly, because his audience is too lazy to read any rich and meaningful material. They want jokes. Miller gives them jokes. Miller's books are a joke =).
You wrote: "Also, I don’t think that Miller is recommending that people move off into the woods and live with pot-smoking hippies."
Where did I say that Miller is recommending people move off into the woods to live with pot-smoking hippies? I didn't say this =).
Let me point out that in your previous comment you accused me of taking the quote from BLJ found on page 210 out of context. I asked you how I had taken this out of context? You provided no response. Do you retract this accusation?
You wrote: "Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like he was relating that personal story for two reasons: 1. To show how the modern church is failing at being a loving community that accepts and cares for one another. Miller mentions how the people in the hippie community seemed so loving and non-judgmental, and how they genuinely cared for one another."
Here's Miller talking about his experience with the hippies (cited twice now): "I was even more amazed when I realized I preferred, in fact, the company of the hippies to the company of Christians. It isn't that I didn't love my Christian friends or that they didn't love me, it was just that there was something different about my hippie friends; something, I don't know, more real, more true. I realize that is a provocative statement, but I only felt I could be myself around them, and I could not be myself with my Christian friends. My Christian communitities had always had little unwritten social ethics like don't cuss and don't support Democrats and don't ask tough questions about the Bible. ... I had discovered life outside the church, and I liked it. As I said, I preferred it." Okay, Miller abandoned his church to live with these pot-smoking hippies in the woods for a month. What were Miller's comments about this experience? - That he found love where he could be himself. He found life outside the church, and he PREFERRED it. Hmmm. If a professing Christian could get along so well with baked out hippies, I question whether this professing Christian were living a godly life to begin with.
The modern church is not failing at being a loving community that accepts and cares for one another. My church loves her members. Most churches I know do this. Who is Miller referring to? We are never told.
You wrote: "2. To show how, despite its imperfections, the church is God’s community for believers, and separating yourself from the church is mutually unbeneficial. After the time spent in the forest with the hippies, Miller eventually rejoins the church and comes to terms with some of his misgivings about the Christian community."
Where in BLJ does Miller state that the reason he recalls this experience is to explain that "the church is God's community for believers, and separating yourself from the church is mutually unbeneficial"? I cannot find this anywhere in the book. In light of your eisegesis of page 210 of BLJ, do you believe that Miller was God-honoring when he abandoned his church for a month to live with pot-smoking unbelievers? Do you believe that Miller was submitting to his elders during this vacation? Do you believe that Hebrews 10:23-25 and Hebrews 13:17 should have been considered by Miller before this escapade of his?
You wrote: "A lot of modern Christian churches simply don’t show love very well, and their members don’t care for one another the way they should. The way that Miller communicates this truth is up for debate, but I think that it’s too easy to criticize his methods without taking a glance at his underlying theme."
A lot of modern churches don't show love very well? I wonder if these unloving churches also teach the whole counsel of God? Do they emphasize the preaching of the Word in their worship gatherings? Do they study the Gospel, the Trinity, the Solas, personal sanctification, evangelism?
You wrote: "Once again, I don’t endorse Miller, and I think that his writing is best for a certain type of Christian reader: a mature believer who is questioning their place in the church and who may be feeling alienated and out of place among believers."
Miller's writing is certainly for a certain type of reader: the kind that enjoys shallow reading with little substance. Miller's works are written for the immature who intend on staying immature. I will end by quoting myself from my last comment: "I agree with you there. Miller is hardly profound or thought-provoking. Yes, Miller's works are being embraced in great numbers, along with many other works in the Emerging Church Movement. Like all fads, the Emerging Church Movement will die because it is lacking in meaningful exegesis from the text of Scripture. The attempts to become "relevant" to our culture by conforming our churches (having pastors cuss, for example) will leave these Emerging Churches without a foundation upon which to stand. Trials, persecutions, and even the test of time will wash these churches away, along with the sandy ground they were built upon. Christians do not need mushy-gushy, pointless books to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. They need to study the Scriptures, first and foremost. Next, they ought to study the Gospel, the Solas, the Trinity, holiness, mercy ... not to mention the host of wonderfully rich and edifying books out there."
Sola Fide,
Rusty
Good stuff, guys. Long, but good.
I'm glad people are honestly engaging Don's book and thinking about his work. My only comment: it's hard for all of us, especially me, to divorce religion from politics as we're so awash in it historically, culturally, socially, etc.... However, we should attempt (myself included) to see people before politics and ideology. Anyway, that probably doesn't make sense, but honestly, it's not a war to inaugurate God's kingdom on earth through the correct arguments -- it's a relationship with a mysterious, spiritual being that is impossible to explain just as it's impossible to explain why we love our families or significant others. All of us would do well to remember that when we represent Christ, and I think that is Don's point.
Thank God Jesus is watching out for the silly humans.... : )
hmm, I'll just say I enjoyed the book, learned some good points from it, learned a bit more on how to discern through reading, and wonder if we're wasting our energy on words rather than loving those around us...
But then again, I'm not exactly the ideal Christian, I suppose. I've lived with non-Christians for two years now, hardly a good influence. Sigh, I wish my mind was built in such a way to write sufficient displays of my thoughts...oh well.
I would enjoy some more talk of this Casey, if you ever had the time.
I will leave with one thing, just so you don't get the wrong ideas about me. I think I have a pretty discerning mind that is also very optimistic. So I left most of his books with JUST things that are helpful, biblical (I think), and worth keeping. Perhaps thats why I liked it...hmm maybe I'll read it again.
Sigh, I need to start making sense...
(btw, its Adam Brewer)
btw, I do have my own blog now, so if you ever want something else to read...:-D
Adam Brewer!
Dude, now that you finally have a real blog =) I'll have to add you to my blogroll!
Well, I think that when you read the book with a discerning mind you can easily pick up on the many lame points Miller tries to make. Sure there are some good elements in his book, but couldn't we say that about almost any work? =)
You should read this entry entry and the comments, then if you'd like we could chat about his book sometime.
Anywho, good to hear from you mate.
Case of Base
I am certainly honored to be added! I figured I wanted some place to entertain my notions of writing, so why not start with this place!
Take care!
Oh, and I copied your blog on my thumbdrive so I can read it on my own time. Never a bad time to check ones thinking, right?
You completely missed the point of Millers book.
God created penguins. When He created penguins he created them as good and beautiful and as a creation to point back to Himself. There is nothing sacreligious about seeing penguins and then reflecting on the nature of God.
Donald Miller's writing brought my faith back in Christianity. Because of him I am now learning to become a follower of Christ. I love Jesus, I love His teaching. I really like Donald Miller. Why do you think someone can't be a hippie or politically liberal and still be a follower of Jesus? Did He say that somewhere and I'm missing it?
It makes me sad that you are so quick to write off someone who could provide so much good to the world if only he was understood.
Post a Comment
<< Home