In May of 2007 the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, identified “younger evangelicals” as one demographic the Democrats are courting to help them win the White House this coming November. Encouraging the Democrats to put aside its historic aversion to religion and “reach out” to evangelicals, Dean told an audience of party loyalists,
“[In the evangelical movement, young people are changing America — and they’re changing the evangelical movement. People don’t want to go to church anymore … and come out feeling bad because they happen to know somebody who’s gay. People want to go to church because they know what they can do about poverty, about Darfur, about the environment.”
Funny. I always thought people were drawn to worship by a transcendent power greater than themselves and their causes.
At any rate, to solidify their commitment to reach out to these younger evangelicals, the Democrats first invited the young evangelical editor of the hip and cool younger evangelical magazine Relevant to give the invocation before one of the sessions of their convention in Denver. Cameron Strang readily accepted the invitation, but then had second thoughts. On his blog Strang explained why he intially jumped at the offer:
I saw my participation as a tangible way to show that this generation of values voters doesn’t necessarily need to draw political battle lines the way previous generations have, and that we can work through areas of disagreement toward common goals—fighting systemic poverty; defending innocent lives lost to pre-emptive war, sex trafficking, torture, genocide, slavery and preventable disease; protecting the environment; and proactively working to reduce the number of abortions each year (not only through legislation, prevention and education, but by financial support for pregnant women and overhauling the adoption system—things are messed up when an abortion is $500 and an adoption is $25,000).
But then he had second thoughts:
Through RELEVANT I reach a demographic that has strong faith, morals and passion, but disagreements politically. It wouldn’t be wise for me to be seen as picking a political side, when I’ve consistently said both sides are right in some areas and wrong in some areas. (And truth be told, I haven’t yet made up my mind about who I’m going to vote for this November. There are a lot of specifics I’d like to hear the candidates talk about before my decision will be made.)
During this political process, my desire is to keep an open dialogue with both campaigns and talk about the issues that matter to my generation of Christians. If my praying on opening night at the DNC would be perceived as showing favoritism or incorrectly labeling me as endorsing one candidate over the other—rather than being the bridge-building gesture which I intended it to be—then I needed to rethink the decision.
Strang suggested that Blue Like Jazz author Donald Miller be asked to do the invocation, which he also has readily agreed to do. Over the weekend Miller did an interview with Christianity Today about delivering the invocation at the DNC. This interview gives ample evidence of why the future of evangelicalism is a non-Biblical, and even non-Christian one, with emergent leaders like Miller at the forefront.
Here I offer just four broad areas of concern raised by Donald Miller’s responses in the CT interview:
1. Miller is inconsistent. Early in the interview he says that America is no longer a Christian nation. Later he says that America represents God to the world. Which is it?
2. In his view, because America is no longer a Christian nation, Christians should view the question of gay marriage as a strictly “rights” issue and leave the word of God out of the equation:
“In terms of gay marriage, I see it as a constitutional issue. Until we become a theocracy, I think that judges should look at it from a constitutional issue. Whether I think homosexuality’s wrong, personally? America is not God’s country. It’s not considered a Christian nation anymore. You have to look at everybody, not just Christians and say, what are the rights of these people based on this constitution.”
When we start saying that people who commit immoral acts are a protected class with constitutional rights we are at the bottom of the slippery slope. This is anything but a biblical position.
3. Miller feels used by the Republican Party but doesn’t recognize the ways in which the Democrat Party is using him and the so-called “younger evangelicals” to build a base for votes. He says he is drawn to the Democrat Party because of their commitment to “the sanctity of human life.” He has to ignore the abortion issue altogether to conclude that the Democrat Party is committed to the sanctity of human life. I know what he is trying to say. He is trying to say Republicans TALK about the sanctity of life but yet do nothing to improve the lives of the already living. This is a straw man that doesn’t stand up.
Miller repeats the Democrat lie that there has been no change on the abortion front in spite of having a pro-life president and a pro-life majority in Congress:
The issue of abortion is a very sensitive one and it’s an important issue. I look at from a perspective of, what’s the best that we can do. As we elect a Republican House and Senate, and as we elect Republican leadership in the executive branch, we see very little changes on that issue. We’re electing someone who agrees with us on abortion, being sort of a tragedy in our country, and yet can’t get anything done.
Either Miller is woefully misguided or intentionally lying. The pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute offers stats that totally contradict the notion that Republicans have failed to “get anything done” on the abortion issue.
Miller says,
“I really felt like the Republican Party was taking advantage of the evangelical community by throwing us abortion and gay marriage, really not giving the heart of Christ more thought.”
And the Democrats are giving the heart of Christ more thought how?
Miller says,
“I felt like it was the party of the extremely wealthy and they needed this conservative base in order to get a majority and so they pandered to us.”
And the Democrat Party is NOT dominated by wealthy people? The Democrat Party is not merely pandering to young evangelicals for political expediency? Miller sees no evil in the Democrat Party.
4. His logic about Barack Obama’s call to improve the worldwide reputation of Christianity is just goofy:
“What we have is Christianity being represented by what is perceived as arrogance, bullying, an inability to negotiate peace, an inability to listen. People assume that Christianity is that way. You ask yourself, what sort of person might God rise up to heal the wounds that have been created by that kind of positioning in the world. You would think a very intelligent minority, who came not out of wealth, who’s not only power position in Washington, D.C., a man who’s more thoughtful in his answers and less bullyish, not as simple of a thinker, even as reality is not simple, a man who has spent part of his upbringing overseas and has connections with Kenya, that’s the guy. A name like Barack Obama, you just kind of go, that would be the guy that God would choose to heal some of the wounds that we’ve caused in the world.”
If America is NOT a Christian nation, as Miller claims earlier in the interview, how is it consistent to claim that the world somehow confuses America’s foreign policy with Christianity?
Miller then posits that because Barack is in a minority, not a simple thinker, has connections to Kenya, and is named ‘Barack,’ therefore he has all of the qualities to “heal the wounds” America has created in the world. That’s just silliness.
Paul, regarding post #14, the false brothers mentioned in various places in the New Testament seem to have one of two traits:
1. They pile on their own interpretations, rules, and standards as the measure of orthodoxy (a la the Galatians passage you quoted), or,
2. They deny the supernatural, including the resurrection of Jesus.
There may be other groups as well, but the first group is the one I tend to see most of, and this is more often than not related to people grasping for power by ADDING to the scripture their interpretations. The ones who scream “heresy” the loudest these days (in ways the early church never would have based on the early creeds) are the Reformed types who use their interpretations as the litmus test for orthodoxy.
The early creeds provided plenty of room for disagreement within the body of Christ about particulars of which one couldn’t prove with certainty. And the mindset of the early church was more Jewish (relational) than Greek (logical), so even words like “faith” meant something different based on the cultural differences (see Ray Vander Laan’s excellent web site http://www.followtherabbi.com ).
God will take care of the tares. The thing WE need to be concerned about is these “strivings over words” and divisions about things that are open to interpretation. The Holy Spirit will do his promised work in his time, guiding us into all truth. We need to be careful to be known by our love and letting our good deeds shine like lights before men. May your speech be always “full of grace, seasoned with salt”. 🙂
For me this issue is that the debate is an either/or scenario, I think that those who are labeled on the evangelical left are actually more in the center than I realized. I started The Great Awakening from Jim Wallis and was very pleased to hear him say many times not to align with a certain party but to measure up the issues. This stance is often times interpreted as left leaning. The right seems to take the approach, as president Bush stated “you are either for us or against us”. I politics this will never work, polarization is not the answer. I am not for Gay marriage; I think the Bible is clear that it is sin. However, so is pornography, adultery and both very legal, why? we can’t prevent sinful people from being sinful. The debate is not going to go away and it is unfortunate that we need to side politically on this debate. I heard Tony Campolo quote Alan Dershowitz in saying that all unions that state authorized should be that state authorized and marriages should be religiously authorized. There is a problem when the minister is performing state legal functions. Is it right to not allow a dying person to see their gay life long partner before they pass because they are not married? Regardless of there sinful lifestyle they are free to live that way and we shouldn’t impose our will on them. This does nothing to further the kingdom of God. We have seen history is replete with people who impose their will on others because they feel God gave them that authority. I see this in the actions of the religious right, instead of saying God is on my side maybe we might better ask, am I on God’s side? Is it OK for the Family organizations to use donated money to get politicians in office to fight abortions or would that money further the kingdom greater by opening up more crisis pregnancy centers? When we serve serve a dead and broken world it furthers the kingdom more than trying to purify it though political means and legal mandates. Politics loves to use these issues to get votes, I like Wallis’ stance that we need to look at the issues and hold politics responsible.
Nancy, that was beautiful.
The Parable of the Weeds
24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27″The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28” ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29″ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”
Matthew 13;24-30 NIV
I think we can rightly judge the fruit and even question or warn when it is obvious, but we might take care with the children of the kingdom…God’s not finished with them yet. I don’t think God asks us before he chooses…you are still a Calvinist right…?
Paul, you said, “I begin with the certainty that truth is knowable, something emergents would characterize as arrogant. Emergents begin with the assumption that ambiguity makes one humble”
I believe (as do many emerging and emergent people) that some things are indeed knowable, but other things require an infinite mind (which we don’t have) or a better understanding of the original context (which takes work but is obtainable).
I (and they) will stand on things that are knowable, but would rather work from common ground and engage in a conversation rather than start off aggressively confrontational. Compare Jesus with the woman at the well vs. Jesus with the scathing comments for the Pharisees; in one case he leads her from the known to the unknown (more of an emergent approach), in the other he confronts and doesn’t give a damn what they think about him (more like what I read here).
I find it especially interesting to note that it was the conservative, self-righteous, self-assured that he confronted most harshly – perhaps my conversational tone is off the mark here (but I think I’ll stick with it as it is a good spiritual discipline for me).
BTW, scripture is indeed clear on homosexuality and a host of other evils (systemic and otherwise). The emergent Rob Bell has a good book on sexuality (“Sex/God”) in which he takes a stronger stand (but in a gentle way) than I’ve heard in most churches (for one thing, sex IS marriage).
A lot of this supposed disagreement has more to do with emphasis and methodology rather than core beliefs; I think they are doing a better job and leading people into actual inner transformation than the terminally-ill evangelical world is as it focuses on external behavior and mental assent.
Yeah, I really think this is ultimately a methodological misunderstanding that threatens the power structures that are currently in place that have been so ineffective and the cause of much cultural embarrassment and derision in the last few decades. I think “you guys” are fighting a battle (not a spiritual one) to keep things as they are, while many (not all) on the emerging front are fighting the battles that Jesus himself did and in a way more similar to his approach. Thank God some Pharisees saw the light back then; may it be so today.
I didn’t condemn Miller. Only God can do that. But I am CERTAIN that his words are out of sync with God’s. “If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).
Fundamentally, the reason an honest conversation between emergents and orthodox Christians can never take place is because we each begin the conversation with different assumptions. I begin with the certainty that truth is knowable, something emergents would characterize as arrogant. Emergents begin with the assumption that ambiguity makes one humble, and therefore one can allow for to a completely anti-biblical position (homosexual unions) and say things like, “Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us” (Brian Mclaren).
The TRUTH is the Holy Spirit has already clearly spoken on the issue of homosexuality (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6). It is this aversion to truth and certainty which makes it impossible for emergents and their sympathizers to understand how I could say with any degree of certainty that Donald Miller is not a Christian. I have a standard outside of myself by which to discern. Emergents only have their own internal standard which is malleable to everyone else’s internal standard so that ultimately the standard becomes, “And every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
We are in a spiritual battle with a Deceiver. Christ has won that battle, but calls on us to earnestly contend for THE faith, which requires boldness to expose the pretenders. The pretenders are in the ranks fighting to destroy us from within, making it all the more difficult. Because the moment I shoot a pretender whom others in the ranks assumes to be on our side, the volley is aimed at me – just as it is aimed at John MacArthur and John Piper, and any other orthodox pastor who is committed to exposing the deceivers and the pretenders.
Paul, you said “You readily accept anyone who claims to be a “brother” because, after all, you have no standard by which to discern whether he truly IS a brother except HIS OWN WORD.”
Actually, I look at their actions (even more than their words, because they may not be able to fully articulate or clearly understand everything). I compare that first to the teachings of Jesus, then to the writings of his emissaries (trying my best to understand them in their original context). I do not include in that process the opinions of John MacArthur, John Piper, or any other human who speaks with certainty about things one cannot be certain. And I’m careful to not condemn, lest I be condemned.
My original rebuttal stands. Much “grace to you”. 🙂
You’d also be “deeply saddened” by the Apostle Paul identifying false brothers, too. Do you honestly believe the false brothers Paul was in danger from (1 Corinthians 11:26) were readily identifable as “false brothers”? These “false brothers” infilitrated the ranks of the Galatian believers and were able to lead them away from the gospel because they SPOKE and ACTED like TRUE brothers (Galatians 2:4). The danger Paul warned the Ephesian elders about would come from OTHER ELDERS: “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:30,31)
This is the problem with you emergent sympathizers: you have no universal standard of truth by which to discern truth from error in the writings and “prayers” of these people. You readily accept anyone who claims to be a “brother” because, after all, you have no standard by which to discern whether he truly IS a brother except HIS OWN WORD. You deny God’s word but would never question the word of Donald Miller when he claims to be a Christian, even though his beliefs and the things he teaches are not orthodox.
Trust me – I’m prepared for the attacks. Pile on. “The body they may kill – God’s truth abideth still!”
Wow! “I highly doubt that he is even a Christian at all.” That is a very sad judgment. That’s exactly what it is – a judgment. How unfortunate. I am amazed you are able to judge his faith in Christ based on this interview and that he prayed for Democrats. I have, until recently, had a lot of respect for you and your positions. I definitely would consider you a brother in Christ, as I do Don, as well.
I am deeply saddened by your statement.
Pingback: Donald Miller at the DNC « Fundy Failure
My rebuttal is my original post. You have not adequately answered one of the issues I have raised, you’ve merely put words in Miller’s mouth.
I spoke to specific things Miller said. Miller sees no evil in the Democrat Party because, like you, he has been duped into thinking Dems represent “the heart of Christ” merely because they have memorized key points of one of His sermons that best fits their poliical agenda.
Miller lies about Republican gains on the abortion front.
And Miller takes morality out of the debate over gay marriage, conveniently making it a strictly constitutional issue. When he does that, like it or not, he has said that homosexuals deserve status as a protected class under the constitution. His pushing the issue off on judges doesn’t excuse his pretended ambivelence on the subject. All of those who name the name of Jesus and wink at sin will be held accountable.
I’ll raise he stakes, Bob. Donald Miller not only doesn’t represent historic Christianity, I highly doubt that he is even a Christian at all.
Again Paul, I can understand you having reservations about Don Miller and about the Democrats, but you’re inflating the argument by reading things into this that aren’t there. There are other ways of understanding what Miller said that are fair and reasonable that don’t imply the extreme notions you suggested. It’s effective for stimulating talk on a radio show, but not helpful in getting to the truth of the matter.
Regarding point 1, others have already addressed the difference between the reality and perception of America’s Christianness.
Regarding 2, you said “When we start saying that people who commit immoral acts are a protected class with constitutional rights we are at the bottom of the slippery slope.”
Don never said they were a protected class nor did he imply they should be; he said he believes it’s a constitutional issue, which leaves the decision in the hands of the judicial system. If the JUDGES rule in favor of such rights then they are the ones to be held responsible, not Don Miller.
Regarding 3, you said “Either Miller is woefully misguided or intentionally lying. The pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute offers stats that totally contradict the notion that Republicans have failed to “get anything done” on the abortion issue.”
Well, in the first part of Don’s quote above he said ‘we see very little changes on that issue.” Later on he overstated his case (like you do often) by saying “We’re electing someone who agrees with us on abortion, being sort of a tragedy in our country, and yet can’t get anything done.” If a 9% reduction in abortion is significant to you, then so be it; to me, I think Don’s first assertion (“very little change”) is quite accurate, and disappointing compared to the hope we all had for Bush, and Don is far from being “woefully misguided” about it.
You also said “Miller sees no evil in the Democrat Party.” Oh really? Where did he say that? You’ll have a hard time finding that quote, my friend, because Don’s not likely to say something THAT dumb. But as far as Dems “giving the heart of Christ more thought”, you should be able to figure that one out; start with Jesus’ opening sermon, connect it to the Sermon on the Mount and other orations recorded in Matthew in subsequent chapters, and mix in the first few chapters of Acts and you don’t see a whole lot of free market capitalism and republican ideals at work.
Regarding 4, you’d have to get point 1 and 3 to understand it.
Happy rebutting.
Simply put, Miller’s uninformed remarks make me BLUE! Thanks, Paul, for repeatedly bringing our attention to this EMERGING problem.
P.S. Both puns are intentional.
Anonymous,
Thank you for your insight. Our only allegiance should be to God alone and we should only trust Him for our provision.
Paul Golder,
Paul the apostle certainly had a way with words (it’s amazing what divine inspiration does!) Thanks for excellenct comments.
With all that is going on in this political season, and how some are redefining the church, I am reminded of a post I read many years ago:
“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.”
It’s almost like he could tell the future…
As someone who grew up with Don, I know his heart is in the right place. However, I also know first hand that he can be naive at times, and I can understand how this interview showcases that.
I wish Donald and the others would understand that ALL politicians will use them, not just the Republicans. Growing up, we never had preachers/pastors endorse a candidate, they would only preach God’s word which would bring you to the correct conclusion on who to vote for. This trend of endorsing candidates at the pulpit became more common 20 years in the fundamentalist movement. Now, it’s spreading to both sides, which is a ride down the wrong path in my opinion.
My allegiance isn’t to any political party (most politicians are power hungry crooks anyway — remember that, Don), but it’s to God.
Great post, Paul.
The “Christian Nation” argument is severely lacking because it is the Church who is responsible for the spreading of Christianity and not the United States Government. Our friends on the left are frequently crying that any involvement by a Christian in the political process is a violation of the separation of church and state, a statement not found in any of our founding documents, by the way (go ahead, my left-leaning friend. Try to find it. Also, Thomas Jefferson’s personal letter to the Danbury Baptists is not a founding document!)
Yet by claiming that the United Sates is no longer a Christian Nation, aren’t they suggesting that by their own prior arguments that the separation of church and state was violated at a previous time when the country WAS a Christian nation? To me it is clear that many on the left don’t want any involvement by the church unless it helps them policially (in the spirit of fairness, the right has done the same thing). And they accuse US of hypocrasy!
The United States government is not in the business of spreading Christianity. (That’s our job!) It is only in the busines of protecting the free exercise of religion. Here is the text of the First Amendment:
“Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Notice that any restriction regarding religion is on the side of the government, limiting any power to ESTABLISH a religion. The framers understood that the state controlled churches of Europe were a disaster. While there were many faithful members in those churches, the fallout was in the persecution of those that did not belong to the state church (the Hugenots of France and the Spanish Inquisition for example). The framers also desired that all who held a particular faith, whether great in number or small, had the right to exercise their faith in what ever way they choose, within the rule of law.
Are we to help the poor? No question about it. We are commanded to do it. But the command is not directed at the government! It is commanded to the church. As for the role of our government, it is plainly laid out in the Preamble of the Constitution :
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Notice it says “General Welfare,” not SPECIFIC welfare. The government needs to be there in case of disputes and to try criminal abuses of the free enterprise system. The government does not have the ability to efficiently control the economy in order to make every person secure. Ultimately, that is the responsibility of the individual. When it attempts this, wasteful government spending goes through the roof because it destroys personal ambition and gives incentive to stay at home and not secure employment sufficient enough to pay a living wage. I have heard so many people, many of whom are truly in need and willing to work, say that they cannot get a better job because then they would make too much money to be eligible for Federal assistence. Isn’t that the point?!!
So, what is the answer? Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are the real answer to the problem. However, we must vote our conscience for the candidates that come closest to exemplifying the lifestyle based on the Scripture. It is only through a deep love for God first, and our neighbor second, that we can even begin to see God make a difference in peoples lives. This world is fallen and the problems will never go away. Jesus said that we always have the poor with us, which suggests to me that the problem with never totally be solved, so we should try to solve the more iminent problem which is salvation of the soul. Then we can tackle the other problems.
I still think Searching for God Knows What is one of the most powerful books I’ve read.
Good points, Fundy. I like Miller a lot, be he will get no sympathy here – too emergent.
It is completely possible for people to associate America with Christianity and for America to NOT be a Christian nation. It is the difference between perception and reality.
Go Don!
http://blog.amoslanka.com/2008/08/22/donald-miller-at-the-dnc-and-the-pandering-of-politics/