Don Miller's 'prediction' for 2011
- Thread starter kvanlaan
- Start date
- Status
Southern Presbyterian
Puritan Board Doctor
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
I know, Perg. I've read a good bit of their stuff. I know that is what they say, but I don't think they understand their own hearts and motives. They have no sound epistemology. That is a result of the modern/liberal philosophy which is rampant in the popular media and culture at large. They are like fish in water. They don't know they are being shaped by what is shaping them. They easily cast stones at easy targets.
I think they've got a point about the failures of the Religious Right and the Moral Majority.
Younger folks want to be socially active and don't trust folks like Pat Robertson any longer. They want to help the poor and the homeless and get involved... and the liberals are doing a better job of channeling that zeal and getting them invovled.
My generation and the one younger then I am seem to be very activitistic and idealistic and greatly distrust, like I do, Pat Robertson and Newt Gingerich and the other adulterers that are still peddling "family values" - seemingly mainly for political expediency and not out of a real commitment to their own families.
We see this reflected in missions nowadays as well (worthy of another thread). Younger folks want teamwork and community and want to be involved in holistic ministries and social justice and ministries of mercy and ministries to the downcast. Older more traditional churches are not seen as valuing these things but are seen as more traditional, rigid, authoritarian, individualistic, judgmental, enforcing the status quo, monocultural and intolerant (even supporting racism and segregation in the past), preaching to people's spiritual state without doing anything for them spiritually, being overly-certain and preachy and pretending to know all the truth instead of being a fellow pilgrim on a truth-journey and not knowing all the answers (a position of intellectual humility instead of dogmatism), etc.
Thus emergent churches are very appealing to many younger people.
---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------
Miller has authored Blue Like Jazz, an immensely popular book among young people looking for answers but who are distrustful of church or old dogmatisms.
I do not think it is just another book, but will be listed as one of the more influential christian books of this decade.
I don't think we should turn our noses up at this book; many more people (outside of our reformed bubble) know about this book than about Joel Beeke and Al Mohler...
It is written very personally and speaks of his faith-journey or faith-struggle and I think it is a quintessential book in understanding the spiritual lives of post-moderns and many of those who end up in Emergent churches.
Younger folks want to be socially active and don't trust folks like Pat Robertson any longer. They want to help the poor and the homeless and get involved... and the liberals are doing a better job of channeling that zeal and getting them invovled.
My generation and the one younger then I am seem to be very activitistic and idealistic and greatly distrust, like I do, Pat Robertson and Newt Gingerich and the other adulterers that are still peddling "family values" - seemingly mainly for political expediency and not out of a real commitment to their own families.
We see this reflected in missions nowadays as well (worthy of another thread). Younger folks want teamwork and community and want to be involved in holistic ministries and social justice and ministries of mercy and ministries to the downcast. Older more traditional churches are not seen as valuing these things but are seen as more traditional, rigid, authoritarian, individualistic, judgmental, enforcing the status quo, monocultural and intolerant (even supporting racism and segregation in the past), preaching to people's spiritual state without doing anything for them spiritually, being overly-certain and preachy and pretending to know all the truth instead of being a fellow pilgrim on a truth-journey and not knowing all the answers (a position of intellectual humility instead of dogmatism), etc.
Thus emergent churches are very appealing to many younger people.
---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------
Miller has authored Blue Like Jazz, an immensely popular book among young people looking for answers but who are distrustful of church or old dogmatisms.
I do not think it is just another book, but will be listed as one of the more influential christian books of this decade.
I don't think we should turn our noses up at this book; many more people (outside of our reformed bubble) know about this book than about Joel Beeke and Al Mohler...
It is written very personally and speaks of his faith-journey or faith-struggle and I think it is a quintessential book in understanding the spiritual lives of post-moderns and many of those who end up in Emergent churches.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Here is an interesting article on Miller from July of last year - Born-again rebel Don Miller reveals 'best sermon I ever heard' - CNN.com I think it captures the good and the bad of him.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Pergs, I agree that they have a point. Even though I am very conservative politically I have little room for the 'Moral Majority' and things like that. I also agree that there is a justifiable lament over the lack of holistic ministry in many aspects of the church. Having said all of that I believe very strongly that the vast majority of what is compelling the Emergent Movement is the very same root that propelled Liberalism in the church in the early 20th century: Liberal theology rooted in a non belief in the errancy of Scripture influenced by nihilistic philosophies and German Rationalism. That is why they can 'embrace' Scripture and at the same time accept sinful behaviours that are anathema in Scripture.
I find it highly ironic that many of the emergent folks are leaving churches that were birthed from the very same Social Gospel compulsions a couple of generations ago.
I find it highly ironic that many of the emergent folks are leaving churches that were birthed from the very same Social Gospel compulsions a couple of generations ago.
LeeJUk
Puritan Board Junior
I would say that Liberalism in theological sense is of the spirit of the age but being more leftist on political issues isn't necessarily the spirit of the age. I think we have to make that distinction. Otherwise what we're saying being right wing is the only valid christian interpretation and frankly its not.
Yes, it seems the pendelum swings back and forth every couple of generations. I am hoping that one day very soon we can finally link theological orthodoxy with vigorous social concerns.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
It is interesting that one of the most "conservative" statements on doctrine has come from former emergent Driscoll (Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Crossway Books. ISBN 9781433506253). He manages to navigate the treacherous waters of post-modernity without joining the Religious Right NOR ignoring the needs of cutting edge social engagement (e.g., Haiti relief).
While Driscoll is more Baxterian in his view of the atonement than most PB folks, I applaud his courageous stand against cultural norms (e.g., for complementarianism and contra egalitarianism) and the trappings of so many of the "Blue like Jazz" generation.
While Driscoll is more Baxterian in his view of the atonement than most PB folks, I applaud his courageous stand against cultural norms (e.g., for complementarianism and contra egalitarianism) and the trappings of so many of the "Blue like Jazz" generation.
kvanlaan
Puritan Board Doctor
Pergs, the thing is that those disaffected youth are largely upset with the same things we are, but instead of purifying the church, they've just turned away from it. Look at "The Shack", and anything by Rob Bell. There is no seeking to a higher understanding of our Lord, there is a dumbing down, and cultural synthesis. As per Rob Bell, God now has 'faith' in us, which allows us to do amazing things as Christians. The Shack was a radical departure from orthodox Christianity that has taken much of the Christian youth by storm. Again, a dumbing down (and move away from) orthodox, Biblical, Christianity.
Tongue in cheek case in point: YouTube - Rob Bell - Oil
I definitely don't think that we should turn up our noses at this sort of nonsense, it is heresy, and it is leading people astray. But the answer is a pure gospel, not religious ritual (see, even I can sound like an emergent, but in doing so can say that they're not wrong about everything...)
Tongue in cheek case in point: YouTube - Rob Bell - Oil
I definitely don't think that we should turn up our noses at this sort of nonsense, it is heresy, and it is leading people astray. But the answer is a pure gospel, not religious ritual (see, even I can sound like an emergent, but in doing so can say that they're not wrong about everything...)
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
I recently read a very good little book, Amazon.com: Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion (9780802458377): Kevin DeYoung, Ted Kluck: Books that addresses a lot of these issues in a very loving, enjoyable, and thoroughly Biblical manner. It is from the same men who wrote, Amazon.com: Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be (9780802458346): Kevin DeYoung, Ted Kluck, David F. Wells: Books, another very good book.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
That's a "prediction"?
Ooh, here's one! People will drive cars in 2011! They'll actually type emails on their cell phones! Some of them might even be surfing the web and reading books on gadgets smaller than a paperback by the end of the year!
I mean, seriously. This has already happened, is happening right now, and probably will continue to happen for a while yet to come.
---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------
(Pardon my sarcasm.)
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
But when Trueman describes "extreme positions" he is saying NOTHING like what Miller is saying in the quotation given in the OP. Those who hold to "extreme positions" for the emergent crowd often means insisting upon things like the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, the reality of a conscious eternity in hell, etc. Saying that Trueman "says such things" as a defense for what Miller says is an error of the same kind as arguing that we shouldn't criticize the Roman church for their position on justification since both they and we say that justification is "by faith".
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
We need to make sure that we do not equate differences in how we address social concerns with a lack of caring for ones fellow man.
I think there's something to this. As a member of the aforesaid generation, I quite understand the disaffection with the "moral majority" types. As Christians, we have to take seriously the fact that political power is not the avenue that Scripture recommends for either mitigating the effects of the fall or reforming society. Instead, we both as individuals and collectively as the Church are called to do so.
Scripturally, I think it's clear: we can't change the world, at least not in the sense normally meant. Instead what we are called to do is to be faithful stewards of what God has given to us, helping those whom God puts into our path. As Christians, we are called to be active in our local settings, helping our neighbors. We are not called to be Ronald Reagans, but George Baileys.
As an example, I've heard descriptions of Chattanooga (just down the mountain from Covenant) back in the of the 80s: the city was rated one of the worst in terms of pollution, crime rates, etc, and further, the population was declining because people just didn't want to live there. However, Christians in and around the city, both as churches and as individuals/businessmen have turned that around. Today, Chattanooga is a very nice place to live: crime is at a low, new businesses are doing very well, and people are staying around, and I think that the Church (particularly the reformed churches in the area) are to be commended for their part.
The trouble with the previous generation in this regard is its faith in politics, which is the wrong focus. If we want to change the world, we start locally. Frankly, the institutional church is slow to recognize this, which is why in many ways, emergent churches look attractive. Why? Because they focus on local community, whereas older churches are either denominations or mega-churches (or mega-church wannabes), which to the current generation looks like just another system of control.
That's my take on part of why many are disaffected.
Scripturally, I think it's clear: we can't change the world, at least not in the sense normally meant. Instead what we are called to do is to be faithful stewards of what God has given to us, helping those whom God puts into our path. As Christians, we are called to be active in our local settings, helping our neighbors. We are not called to be Ronald Reagans, but George Baileys.
As an example, I've heard descriptions of Chattanooga (just down the mountain from Covenant) back in the of the 80s: the city was rated one of the worst in terms of pollution, crime rates, etc, and further, the population was declining because people just didn't want to live there. However, Christians in and around the city, both as churches and as individuals/businessmen have turned that around. Today, Chattanooga is a very nice place to live: crime is at a low, new businesses are doing very well, and people are staying around, and I think that the Church (particularly the reformed churches in the area) are to be commended for their part.
The trouble with the previous generation in this regard is its faith in politics, which is the wrong focus. If we want to change the world, we start locally. Frankly, the institutional church is slow to recognize this, which is why in many ways, emergent churches look attractive. Why? Because they focus on local community, whereas older churches are either denominations or mega-churches (or mega-church wannabes), which to the current generation looks like just another system of control.
That's my take on part of why many are disaffected.
Last edited:
I do not agree with the emergents and postmoderns but I definitely understand where they are coming from and see why the emergent church is attractive to them.
While disliking Rob Bell's doctrine, I think his packaging is very attractive to younger folks and I think Mark Driscoll and others who appear very transparent and honest with their feelings and emotions and even doubts is appealing. That is why Don Miller's Blue Like Jazz sold so well. I read it and liked it.
I think we can learn a bit from the emergent church regarding presentation of our beliefs, even as they learn from us regarding doctrine.
---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 AM ----------
Got it, thanks for the reminder.
---------- Post added at 02:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 AM ----------
Yes, it does sound existential and postmodern. Remember, Kierkegaard the existentialist Christian was reacting against the cold dogmatism of the state Lutheran church. I think many emergents are reacting against traditional US churches in much the same manner.
While disliking Rob Bell's doctrine, I think his packaging is very attractive to younger folks and I think Mark Driscoll and others who appear very transparent and honest with their feelings and emotions and even doubts is appealing. That is why Don Miller's Blue Like Jazz sold so well. I read it and liked it.
I think we can learn a bit from the emergent church regarding presentation of our beliefs, even as they learn from us regarding doctrine.
---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 AM ----------
Got it, thanks for the reminder.
---------- Post added at 02:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 AM ----------
Yes, it does sound existential and postmodern. Remember, Kierkegaard the existentialist Christian was reacting against the cold dogmatism of the state Lutheran church. I think many emergents are reacting against traditional US churches in much the same manner.
That's certainly the common perception. Actually, though, I realized while reading Training in Christianity that Kierkegaard has no objection whatsoever to doctrine. The whole work is about the offense of the cross and of the doctrine of the incarnation and how the only two options should be rejection or faith. Kierkegaard isn't opposed to doctrine, but to lifeless, complacent, respectable Christianity. Kierkegaard is essentially arguing that the church should always be militant. The fact that emergents like Kierkegaard proves that they haven't read him carefully enough.
As for existentialism, I see far too much of it in the "just-me-and-Jesus" mentality so pervasive through evangelicalism today: instead of "meaning-that-I-create" it's "Jesus-as-I-see-Him." It amounts to the same thing.
Yes, that is what I got from Kierkegaard too, which is why I love him. I think many emergents also believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are saying similar things, calling the church back to social action.
For what it's worth, a good friend of mine who was running well in the faith as a new Christian stopped attending church altogether and has probably apostasized after reading and being influenced by Blue Like Jazz. False doctrine is not a game; it hurts people's lives. There is good cause for warning strongly against it rather than thanking it for being almost a little right.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Austin's statement is something that I can repeat many times over. I have seen more than one young person who was derailed into either a very liberal / universalist gospel or into the Roman Church after being influenced by emergent stuff. Doctrine is deadly serious business.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Even churches that are very solid doctrinally can widely miss the mark when it comes to living out the implications of the Gospel. It's somewhat common in our circles for churches to hit in some areas, like personal avoidance of certain sins, but miss loving their neighbors. On top of this, they sometimes take on a scolding attitude that's inappropriate for people saved by grace. This is the sort of "zealous Christian" Don Miller is talking about. We may not like his theology, his choice of words or his broad brush. But we must agree with him that such churches will cause seekers to turn away to liberal options. And those seekers are right to turn away. The tragedy is that along with turning away from coldness they also turn away from good doctrine.
For us, the solution will never be found in contending that they are the problem. We are the problem. Our good doctrine is not lived out as fully as it should be, with energetic love for God and for our neighbors.
The fact that liberal churches have majored on the "love your neighbor" thing should not be a reason for us to avoid such love for fear of becoming like them, or accused of such. Rather, we should be ashamed. After all, we have the comfort of the Gospel. We have the Spirit. We are far more able, and have far more reason, to love our neighbors: "If there is any encouragement in Christ, and comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy... Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:1, 4).
Then Don Miller and his ilk will be proven wrong.
For us, the solution will never be found in contending that they are the problem. We are the problem. Our good doctrine is not lived out as fully as it should be, with energetic love for God and for our neighbors.
The fact that liberal churches have majored on the "love your neighbor" thing should not be a reason for us to avoid such love for fear of becoming like them, or accused of such. Rather, we should be ashamed. After all, we have the comfort of the Gospel. We have the Spirit. We are far more able, and have far more reason, to love our neighbors: "If there is any encouragement in Christ, and comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy... Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:1, 4).
Then Don Miller and his ilk will be proven wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
