Mon 12 Sep 2005
Reading Nancy Pearcey (yes, her again) I had several thoughts regarding Donald Miller’s use of the term “Christian Spirituality” in his book Blue Like Jazz (actually, the thoughts started with Miller, went to a recent Newsweek story and soon moved to the emergent church and Brian McClaren, but it’s my blog and I’ll ramble if I want to).
Whether or not we realize it, Miller’s trend is a common one as more and more people are moving away from (what they feel is) rigidly defined religion towards the more personal and ambiguous “spirituality” as the recent Newsweek confirms. Pearcey notes in Total Truth that “today people are less likely to talk about religion at all, preferring the term spirituality” (pg. 117; emphasis hers). We may understandably ask what is the difference? Pearcey continues, “Religion has come to refer to the public realm of institutions, denominations, official doctrines, and formal rituals - while spirituality is associated with the private realm of personal experience” (pg. 117).
Indeed, this fits well with Miller’s highly subjective approach. What we see modeled in Miller is a move inward; a move to subjectivity and experience as the final filters of all truth. Yes, Scripture is clear, but it must be filtered through our own experience, so it may not mean the same thing to you as it does to me; the important part is that we keep open dialogue, each growing from the other.
What are we to make of this? Are the emergents on to something? Have the modernists formalized and categorized even Christianity to the point that it needs deconstructing? Or have the emergents fallen into a subtle trap? Notice that the result of the Religion vs. Spirituality construct is that even faith may be divided between the public and private realms. The formal structures of the church and formal doctrine are for the public sphere, but the important part, my spirituality, that is my private reality, and that is really the core of “my Christianity.” While this may seem subtle, it is also a destructive move away from the realm of Christianity as objective truth.
Notice also in which category doctrine belongs. What is subtly being communicated is that the formal faith of the past may be done away with, along with its formal structures of hypocrisy, but also with its formal doctrines. We see this modeled even in lifechurch.tv saying that their approach will rid the church of hypocritical people. Yet, at some point we must allow doctrine to divide, because truth divides. Scripture clearly tells us that we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming (Ephesians 4:14), and we are to correct certain strange doctrines (1 Timothy 1:3). This seems to imply that doctrine is a necessary element of the Christian life. Public doctrine.
Though we cannot draw concrete conclusions, it is interesting to note that as we see the increasing chasm between religion and spirituality, we also see an increasing move away from doctrine and from anything resembling traditional Christianity. Newsweek’s poll also shows that we have moved away from an understanding of the exclusivity of the Gospel: 68% of the magazine poll and 48% of the internet poll claim that someone who is not a Christian may still go to Heaven. The rapper Kanye West, appearing recently on Charlie Rose echoed the same sentiment: he claims to be a Christian who claims you don’t have to believe in Christ for salvation. At the same time, we see emergents such as Brian McClaren moving away from traditional doctrines such as hell and others. All of which results in a cheapening of our Savior and His work.
While on one hand we must applaud the move away from formalism which often leads to hypocrisy, we must also lament the loss of clear doctrinal boundaries. What we find is an interesting situation in which many emergents claim to be reaching back into history and tradition for worship while they also move farther away from the historic creeds and beliefs that grounded that very worship. Adopting a liturgical approach is not the same thing as holding to historic Christianity.
With men such as Brian McClaren steering the ship, I worry that it’s not long until they drift into the waters of heresy. I appreciate McClaren’s willingness to ask hard questions, but that’s not enough. At some point, we must also recognize the answers that Scripture provides; answers which will often divide and must be allowed to do so. The deeper question here is whether or not Christianity is even possible without objective, propositional truth? Paul certainly thought it necessary to ground the resurrection as objective fact and the Genesis account does the same for creation. The move towards a personal “spirituality” undermines the very idea of presenting Christianity as a Total Truth that makes sense of all life. We must maintain clear doctrinal standards, because Scripture does so. In the end, it’s not enough to cling to “spirituality” if your slipping away from Scripture.
Read Blue Like Jazz by Don Miller.
Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.
Read Newsweek’s article In Search of the Spiritual.
Take Newsweek’s poll.
Learn more about jazz.
Visit the Blue Note Records website.
Download live Miles Davis (10/27/69).
Download Blue in Green by Miles Davis.
Download Epistrophy by Thelonious Monk.
Download Don’t Blame Me by Thelonious Monk.
on 12 Sep 2005 at 1:05 pm 1.William E. Turner Jr. said …
Miller’s book I think would be better subtitled, “Non-Christian thoughts on Religious Spirituality.”
on 12 Sep 2005 at 1:39 pm 2.sean said …
i sympathize with the frustration that miller has become the new pop (or maybe sub-pop) sensation in Christian circles, but i think throwing him out b/c of emergents is like, well we all know the cliche. am i the only one that read miller’s scathing critique of the emerging movement in Blue Like Jazz?
honestly, the whole spirituality without truth approach falls apart within minutes of talking to most people who live in the real world. talk to someone who says faith is all about the relational and not about the rational and you can win them over the second they start talking about tangibles like the love of God. miller really isn’t that subjective, and the charge that his work is “non-Christian” is wreckless in my humble estimation.
on 12 Sep 2005 at 6:25 pm 3.Brent said …
Sean;
I appreciate your comments. It has not been my intention (nor do I think I’ve communicated) throwing Miller out with anything (including emergents). The other post repeatedly refers to how much I enjoy his writing style, etc., and I do think that he’s much more helpful than someone like MccLaren.
Regardless of what happens in the “real world,” I only have what Miller has in print and I’m not sure how he can be pictured as anything other than subjective. There is little to no interaction with Scripture, the book is written in journal format all about his own experiences from which he then draws conclusions.
I certainly have not charged his work as “non-Christian” in anything I’ve written.
I think Miller and others have a warmth and genuineness which has long been lacking in evangelical (particularly Reformed) cirlces, and we would do well to continue to read and listen. But I do also think that he has taken a large step in the direction of subjectivity.
We cannot allow that his destination is accurate if how he got there is wrong. Just because you come to the right conclusions through experience does not mean your conclusions are Scriptural and that’s where I struggle with Miller’s approach.I don’t want us to fall into either the extreme of throwing him out or accepting everyting he says without checking him against Scripture.
I would very much like to see him incorporate more Scripture into his meanderings because I do think that he has a lot of really helpful things to say, and I suppose, at the end of the day, that is my biggest worry.
Thanks again Sean!
on 13 Sep 2005 at 5:08 pm 4.William E. Turner Jr. said …
Sean,
My rearrangement of Miller’s subtitle is a play on words - it is written tongue and cheek. It is my fault for not putting one of those smiley faces next to the comment. In other words it was a joke.
But as my wife often reminds me - there is always some truth in jest. I will not deny that Miller has some good points that the church needs to hear, but I do believe that overall his message does more harm that good. To argue my case it would require a more indepth interaction with his work but here are a few brief and random thoughts.
First, Miller continually denigrates the church, the glorious body of Christ. This gets tiring after a while. Of course, the church has problems, but he speaks very little positive of the church universal. To do so is to denigrate the body of Christ. Problems in the church need to be pointed out but there are more constructive, more biblical ways of doing it.
Secondly, in continually ridiculing the church he seems to strive closer to promoting unity with the world than with the church. Again, how does this fit with Ephesians 4?
Thirdly, his writing reminds me of Erasmus’ excellent and hilarious “In the Praise of Folly” (and other satirical works). In this work he ridicules the Roman Catholic church and takes them to task for all their moral failures.
Yet, Erasmus’ attempt at Reform failed. Why did it fail? Because he sought only a moral reformation. I see much of this desire for moral reformation in Miller. This isn’t necessarily wrong but it is misguided. It took Luther to see that reformation needed to begin with theology. This is where Miller seems to miss the boat in my opinion.
And lastly, I would just like to challenge you to think about how Christ centered and gospel centered Miller’s work really is. If he wants such a change - and change is needed - he seems to be barking up the wrong tree. It is a Reformation of the gospel and of Christ in all his glory which the church so desperately needs. Then moral reform will flow out of that theological reform.
I do truly apologize if my “parody” of Miller’s book offended you. I don’t think it was wreckless because it was meant in jest (with some truth behind it), but nonetheless I believe Miller is the one who is really wreckless, because he has failed to see the heart of the problem which is the necessity for a reformation of gospel and Christ centered living.
Sean, I have been rather busy lately but I am planning on writing a more lengthy review of Miller’s work. Hopefully within the next few weeks I will begin and I will provide support and justification for my reasoning. If interested please check my blog in a few weeks or e-mail me at weturner777 - at - hotmail.com
wir sein pettler, hoc est meum…