Derek Webb-Donald Miller Chat

Don't miss the Derek Webb and Donald Miller online chat tomorrow night. 

Joining the conversation is a sure ticket to becoming a theological liberal repackaged with a goatee.  If you are a girl, it will take a pretty significant piercing to equal goatee status.  Yes!  You can be a liberal too!  Try throwing something into your eyebrow, tongue, nose, or lower lip.  You didn't know liberalism was this easy, did you?  Lucky I'm here for you.

Comments

[Joe Thorn]

I think instead of listening to that I will let Russ tell me all about it. He is like a magic decoder ring for culture, religion and politics.

[Denny Burk]

Thanks for the heads-up, Steve.

[Matt Stokes]

I will admit that Moore's comments are snarky, but I would love for someone to explain how they are wrong. Miller and his collective are advocating the writings of Cornel West and Barbara Ehernreich. If that's not quasi-Marxist, I don't know what is. And he doesn't separate his politics from his faith. He sees the two as operating together. These endorsements are, to Miller's mind, just an extension of his faith.

Am I the only person bothered by this? I'm not writing him off altogether, by the way. But I find this very disturbing. I find it equally disturbing that no one else seems willing to question the man.

[Steve McCoy]

Hey Matt.

Best I can tell, it's the "in" thing among conservative evangelicals right now to not only question Miller, but make him out to be a seminal leader in the emerging MOVEMENT who wrote BLJ as the main theology text for the MOVEMENT. Rather he is just a quirky, chubby, funny guy who is trying to figure out (like many of us) how to picture Jesus as something other than a white, upper-middle class Republican. God forbid he recommend a writer who might challenge our assumptions.

Also, if you haven't yet, why don't you submit a question to the conversation tomorrow night. Most conservative evangelicals (I'm one) would rather stand far off, throw some stones at the guy, and raise our banner in victory. Instead, I submitted a question to DM about the claim that he is just liberalism repackaged with a goatee.

Moore's post and shots at Miller in the opening paragraph contain no subtance to back what he says. Am I supposed to just accept it anyway? You want someone to prove them wrong, but I want Moore to prove them right or not say it.

[Denny Burk]

Steve,

Matt brought up something I didn't know. He said, "Miller and his collective are advocating the writings of Cornel West and Barbara Ehernreich." Are you saying that Miller does not advocate these writings? Do you think it's a problem if he is?

Just wondering.

Thanks,
Denny

[Richard A. Bailey]

Did you guys know that cultural and theological commentary can be spiritually dangerous?

No, wait, I'm thinking of blogging.

As you were.

[Ryan Abs]

I'm sorry, but did Matt suggest that politics should b separated from faith? Did I read that right or did I miss the sarcasm? Last time I checked my faith was supposed to inform everything I do, including my political activity. That means I do not blindly pinch the Republican ticket without knowing where the candidates stand on issues close to God's heart- justice, ministry to the poor and the orphan, freedom from greed and corruption. Miller is more honest about any of these things than most believers, which in my opinion, is why most evangelicals are uncomfortable with him. He makes us take a hard look at the cost of being in bed with a political party. Now Matt, let's rethink our comments here please. Surely you want faith and politics to interact.
Abs

[Steve McCoy]

Denny, as best as I know Miller recommends one of West's books and from his description it looked like it might be an interesting read. So not knowing the book, it's kind of hard for me to bash Miller for it.

Oddly, some are questioning Miller for recommending a book from West, and no one is questioning Moore/Sagers for recommending Miller's Dragon book. Don't they know the danger of advocating Miller's writings? If someone picks up this book they may later on unwittingly pick up Blue Like Jazz and then, *gulp*, may become a theological liberal! Moore has been so careless.

Oh, and let's once and for all decide that J.I. Packer is a loser after all. He has put some blurbs on some pretty bad books.

Oh, and Denny. I won't be online much today. So let's not start a comment marathon. :)

[Matt Stokes]

Ryan, of course I think politics and faith should interact. But I stand firm that the quasi-socialism of Barbara Ehrenreich and the victimization and moral equivalences of Cornel West are, at best, a shaky means of integrating the Christian faith and political process.

Steve, I will try to submit a question to the chat. My point is not that Miller or Webb are theological liberals. I don't think they are, though Miller has said a few shaky things in the past. Nor do I consider Miller to be at the forefront of the emergergent church. What I do think is that these guys are out front with their politics, which are more to the left than your run of the mill Democrat. I find that very questionable. I am not suggesting that Dobson and company have it all right. They don't, especially as it concerns their actions in front television cameras. But I cannot ignore the fact that Miller is using his platform (a deserved one, I might add) to advocate the work of a utopian socialist like Ehrenreich, who'd have us all on Euro-style health care, and West, a man whose ideas are foolish at best, dangerous at worst.

We can say that I'm adding to much to Miller (and Webb), but they don't let us off the hook that easily. Just as Falwell makes the culture war a huge issue, these guys make political liberalism a huge part of their own message.

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, have you read the two books Miller recommends from these two people? If so, please tell us about those specific books and not just about the general views of the authors. If Miller recommends all views of those two people somewhere, please let us know where.

[Matt Stokes]

Steve, I have not read either of the most recent works by Ehernreich or West. Havind said that, I think my point still stands. Both authors are widely known for their positions on political mattters, and having not read those two books should not take away from my point.

My hunch is that Webb and Miller have read very little of William F. Buckley or Norman Podhoretz, but that doesn't stop them from knocking Republicans, either.

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, let's not get weird here bro.

1. Going on hunches will only get you in trouble. Stick with facts and details as we have them.

He recommends two specific books. Not the authors and complete worldviews. And you can be Miller probably disagrees with some stuff in each book, just as I disagree with some stuff in BLJ. Again, has no one else seen that Moore/Sagers basically recommend Miller's Dragon book while hating BLJ?

2. So you can't cut on general Republican values/positions unless you've read Buckley and Podhoretz? Please Matt. That's a silly argument.

[Matt Stokes]

Steve: I didn't intend to get weird, and I realize no one wants to spend all day on this. Spring break is next week and I hope to write more on this then, on my own blog. I'll keep you posted.

Let me close it out with this. I do think that if one is going to criticize the connection between the church and the GOP, one must evaluate the roots of the GOP. In today's GOP, that would be conservatism, and any serious evaluation of conservatism has to go back to its intellectual roots in the 1950s and 1960s. So yes, I think to make a serious, sustained criticism of the current situation, Miller or Webb or anyone else would need to dig rather deep.

Secondly, I plan to read Nickel and Dimed very soon. Having said that, there is nothing in the press about Ehrenreich or West to suggest that their new work is anything different from their usual platform of left-wing, Euro-style socalist economic policies (Ehrenreich) and West's quasi-raciset bitterness of slavery. I'll write more later, but I wanted to clarify my own thoughts. Thanks for the opportunity.

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, if Miller or Webb were academics intending to write a book on it or give a lecture, you are surely right.

As it is, I find your argument very flawed. First because you act as if Miller/Web are making some "serious, sustained argument" against the GOP. How so? Second because you have relegated critique of the ways of man to scholars and historians, or at least serious students of history.

If you find something Webb or Miller says and believe they are wrong, then point it out on your blog. Enjoy ripping their arguments apart all you like. But your angle is looking pretty arrogant, and I don't think you intend that.

To be honest, I think one could simply know Christ crucified and in that knowledge sustain quite a critique of any political ideology. It sounds like you would disagree.

[Keith]

Matt, you do a nice job of caricaturing Ehernreich and West in the most uncharitable way possible. That might make you feel superior to them, but it's not very truthful.

[Denny Burk]

Steve,

Why are you criticizing Matt for not reading Cornel West and Barbara Ehernreich while saying that nobody needs to read Buckley and Podhoretz in order to criticize conservatism? That seems really inconsistent.

Denny

[Denny Burk]

Good grief, you guys need to lighten up on Matt. He's being accused of being "arrogant," "untruthful," and "uncharitable." Sounds to me like he's disagreeing quite amicably. Why must his motives be impugned?

[Matt Stokes]

Keith, how am I being "uncharitable" to either Ehrenreich or West? West views America as an imperialist nation, he's friendly to a dictator like Hugo Chavez, and while not a Marxist, he admits to being a socialist. Ehrenreich is an avowed leftist who believes that Euro-style welfare is the solution to America's economic woes. That might be a misreading on my part, but it's not purposeful.

As I told Steve, I plan to follow up on this on my own blog in the next few days.

Denny, thanks.

[Steve McCoy]

Denny, seriously man. Must you read those two authors in order to say that Christians don't have to tow the Republican party line? Does anyone here actually think that Miller or Webb are putting forth in-detail critiques of conservatism?

These guys are saying that Jesus doesn't equal Republican. Anyone who can read and comprehend the Gospels can figure that out. Well, most anyone it seems. And suddenly now they must study the history of conservatism, read Bill Buckley, and subscribe to The Limbaugh Letter?

This shows the depth of the grip that political conservatism has on the church and why we need the "foolishness" of Miller and Webb who read Jesus and see much better things than tax-cuts and rugged individualism.

[Denny Burk]

Steve,

Nobody disagrees with the statement: "Jesus doesn't equal Republican." I think we can all agree. As matter of fact, I daresay we all share that complaint with Webb.

Thanks,
Denny

[James]

Thanks for the tip, Steve. I'm going to use it in family devotions this evening. : )

[Joe Thorn]

Here is my problem with Moore; straw men. The guy could open a countryside stand selling scarecrows for crying out loud. Don is a hip liberal? The guy believes in a real hell, the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ, and the absolute authority of God's word.

Hmm. You know, Moore might consider me a liberal. I mean, tonight I will meet with friends from church (ranging from mid-twenties to forties) and discuss Covenant Theology at an Irish pub. Some of us will even drink beer.

In all seriousness. I think guys like Moore are sharp guys that can often engage systems of thought and history well. And although we share a similar confessional ID (if they are reformed), I think they have a hard time exegeting culture (another topic), and I often see things very different from them.

In the end, I simply don't think Moore is being fair to what Don actually says.

[J.Gray]

Here's the thing: no one here thinks that Jesus was/is/would be a Republican.

I just don't need to be force-fed the idea by someone else that Jesus was/is a pacifist or a vegan or any other leftish-idea (for lack of a better term).

The irony of many people I read who are quick to blast conservative Christians for their conservative politics is that they don't want Christians to reject ideas that are politically motivated, they just want to substitute them for their own.
Guys like Ron Sider and Jim Wallis (whom Derek has said he is influenced by) don't want the church to be uninvoloved and not have a political stance...they just want the church to have THEIR political stance. Sadly, that is what most of this debate is really about.

Can we all agree that Jesus is not a Republican? Yes. But it does not follow that Jesus would be a democrat or would reject Republican views on issues.

Many here don't like to be told to follow the right-wing party line. Myself included. But it does not mean that you swing the pendulum and reject the right-wing views altogether. This is what many people I know have done.
Their reaction was too reactionary.

Now, as to the comments regarding Russ Moore...it is intensely humorous to me to see people who are begging for their voice to be heard to blast anyone's opinions. We say (myslef included) that we want a "conversation" but it ends up being "we want affirmation of our dissent" as we ridicule those who disagree. Do I agree with every comment that Dr. Moore says? No. But that does not make it ok for some people on here to refer to him, as they have in the past few weeks, as "out of touch" and "ignorant". You disagree with him, fine. But don't be jerks about it. You disagree with the rhetoric he uses, fine, but don't then in turn attack him in kind.

Converse...don't attack.

Just a few observations.

-JG

[J.Gray]

Joe,

Don't you find some of Don's theological comments disconcerting?

He seems shaky to me on his view of the Bible, and maybe even exclusivity of the gospel (though I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong).

I guess what I am curious about is why you are MORE critical of guys like Moore or someone like him when they make comments than you are of Miller?

Honest question, not an attack of any kind.

-JG

[Joe Thorn]

J.Gray,

1. To assert that Moore is constructing a straw man is not an attack. It is an observation.

2. Of course the values of the Kingdom of God transcend (and sometimes reflect) the values of both political parties. But many of us see an uncomfortable connection between Republican Party and the church. I would be equally uncomfortable if I saw the same connection to the Dem. Party.

3. This is a conversation. If someone tells a lie, misrepresents another, or makes a mistake - they are called on it. I agree we should work at being charitable even when others (like Moore, or me) sometimes aren't.

4. I am MOORE critical (that's kinda funny) because a) he should know better as an academic who is well read and in a leadership position b) he is a part of my own camp, and I am always most critial of myself and my own people and c) he has a "snarky," condescending attitude in many of his comments.

5. Yep, Don says stuff I don't like. So does Paige Patterson, Johnny Hunt, and others. But I try to focus on their point when reading them, not nit pick at things that are not the point. I think we need to read Don carefully, graciously, with discernment. But we need to read him differently than we would Moore's book on the Kingdom. Think genre. Really, for people who love verbal, plenary insp. and hermenautics applied to different genres of literature we should be doing better when reading a guy like Miller.

6. Read the interviews with Don and he comes clean with what he believes, he is not evasive like McLaren. The doctrines I claim he affirms I have read him affirm in interviews.

[Steve McCoy]

When you bleed "red" (or "blue") you don't realize how deep the colors run. I don't think it's even debatable. As a group, American conservative (theologically) evangelicals are deeply linked with the Republican party. Derek Webb isn't making it up. Neither is Don Miller.

Notice how recommended links paint a clear picture. Go to some of your favorite conservative Christian blogs and see how they mix the Weekly Standard with Phil Johnson with National Review with World Magazine with Instapundit with Challies with PowerLine.

[Denny Burk]

Steve,

The links reveal someone who is conservative on social issues. Anyone who knows Moore knows that he is a reluctant Republican at best, if he even is one.

Denny

[Steve McCoy]

Denny, would the average Christian who is conservative theologically think that Jesus would be a conservative Republican?

[Denny Burk]

Dear Steve,

I hope not, but far too many probably do.

Thanks,
Denny

[J.Gray]

Joe,

Thanks for you clarification.

Steve,

No doubt that many conservative Christians are linked with the Republican party.
But the fact that values that Christians have overlap some of the stated beliefs of the Republican party does not mean endorsement of all things Republican. Much like your own example of endorsing Miller or McLaren, but not endorsing everything they believe. True?

But what of liberal Christianity that has long since sold it's soul to the liberal political movement?
I know you would say that you don;t critique them because you are not part of their camp, but at the same time, why is it ok for them to not only wholeheartedely and wholesale endorse liberal politics, but to have those politicians speak at their churches, with little to no criticism?
Have you ever wondered why Sider and Wallis are quick to blast evangelicals and their political ties, but quietly ignore ther own? They want christians to endorse political views...just not conservative views.

Why no complaint about that? (Once again, I assume it is because OUR camp has this specific problem.)

That is really my complaint about guys like Miller and Webb. They are very one-sided in their supposedly unbiased critique.

Now, I think it must be said that Christians are to be involved in the political process, though not reliant on it. "Render unto Caesar" has a new meaning when we the people ARE Caesar.
I never expect to legislate morality as if it would clean up this country. I don;t believe this is a Christian nation, nor ever was. I don't believe that we can MAKE people believe because of political movements.
But I do think we have a right to voice our opinions in the political process, as we are citizens in this country and have role in the decision making process. Thus, inevitably we align oursleves with those who politically agree with us.

The denial of that reality is baffling to me.

Does that make me a Republican Christian? No. It makes me a Christian who has a worldview and values that, at this time, are represented by a certain segment of politicians that are most usually found in one certain party.

Does that make sense?

-JG

[J.Gray]

"Denny, would the average Christian who is conservative theologically think that Jesus would be a conservative Republican?"

Maybe so.

But does that mean that we are to violently protest all Republican and/or conservative views and grasp on to liberal and/or Democratic views to show that error?

No, but sadly that is what many people of our generation in the churhc have done.

The cliche is true: 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Jesus is not a Republican.

But sadly many 20-30 somethings as well as all of liberal Christianity believe that Jesus is/was a liberal Democrat or green or something else like that.

Jesus wasn't a vegan or a pacifist, nor was he a capitalist.

Both sides are wrong whent hey make claims or assumptions of that kind. I just wish we'd see some balnace in the critique.

-JG

[Joe Thorn]

JGray,

I know you addressed Steve, but let me say that I think we should critique all. I only said that I start with, and am hard on, my camp first.

I would also say that one should not make a necessary link between liberal theology and liberal politics.

Politics are far more complicated than one-issue votes would have us believe.

No one is saying Miller is objective or unbaised. We all have biases. But we need to learn to listen, really listen, to those who have biases different from our own.

Wallis is weak (in one sense) on defending the unborn. But he still has some good ideas that are worth listening to that can help us who value the life of all made in the image of God.

I will speak for Steve, and Wallis, and Miller, and myself and you and Denny and say - following Christ should impact our view and participation in politics. That is not being questioned.

As a 33 year old, pastor my observation is that many seem to equate voting republican with moral duty. Many/most SBC churches (from my observation) seem to think there is really only one choice in voting - and Red is it. I know many who have voted Blue. None of them think any one party is perfect. I have met no one who thinks Jesus would be a Dem. Everyone I know who votes either way is trying their best to follow Christ, value life, love their neighbor and glorify God.

I don't see many in this conversation dismissing all thing republican, but they are dismissing the wholesale adoption of the Rep. platform.

Uhh. I know a lot of vegans. Not sure why you keep tying that to politics.

"Jesus wasn't a pacifist." Well, we would need to define our terms on that. But that is another thread altogether.

[Steve McCoy]

Jason, you are taking your more thoughtful approach to politics and imposing it on the average Christian. As a whole I think theologically conservative American Christians are conservative Republicans and don't believe there is any other way to be. This is a HUGE problem in the US and clearly more obvious in the suburbs than the city as we isolate ourselves from the social justice issues of our day.

As to critiquing liberal Christianity, which ones? I don't really know any. I don't really read any. And to be honest I have spoken against liberal Christianity for most of my Christian life because it was an easy target that I could use to rile up the conservatives. As for McLaren, I have critiqued him, even recently. Why are you telling me I haven't?

You said, "But does that mean that we are to violently protest all Republican and/or conservative views and grasp on to liberal and/or Democratic views to show that error?...No, but sadly that is what many people of our generation in the churhc have done."

Your overstatement is uncalled for. Violent? And have you ever considered the sycretism conservative Christianity has made with conservative politics is the basis for why some in younger generations are recoiling and going the other way?

I'm happy to think outside of the two parties and encourage that, and a little Miller can be very helpful to break that syncretism.

All,

As for Don Miller, everyone makes claims about his view of the Bible and such, but no one quotes anything. I'm not going to discuss it unless you pull from his books on it.

As for Miller recommending a book, again, no one has said anything about Moore recommending Miller's new book but hating the old. If Moore isn't a liberal for recommending Miller, then Miller isn't a Marxist for recommending West.

As for Miller/Webb being one-sided, they are pushing in the right direction.

As for ME, I'm done with this thread. Enjoy.

- me

[Alex]

The overall tenor of this conversation reminds me why I have largely eschewed politics.

Just thinking out loud here, and maybe I'll get skewered for this....
If Jesus was asked, "Are you a democrat or a republican?" I doubt he'd give an answer one way or the other. He refused to get involved with the politics of first century Palestine, and I doubt he'd be definitively involved in our politics. Oh maybe he'd make pronouncements about particular issues, but I tend to think he'd largely stay above the fray and focus on those things that really matter.

[Denny Burk]

For those of you who have speculated on Russell Moore's politics, here's an autobiographical tidbit that pretty much blows away some of the assumptions made in this thread:

"I started my young adulthood working with the greatest public servant I've ever known, a pro-life, Roman Catholic, Democratic United States Congressman named Gene Taylor. I was always impressed with the fact that Congressman Taylor was not "pro-life" for electoral concern, but he really believed his church's moral teaching on abortion, and, beyond that, the man just loves babies. One of the saddest realizations of my life was that men like Gene Taylor are not the future of the Democratic Party (or, maybe, come to think of it, the Republican Party either)."

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/03/conscience_fait.html

[Steve McCoy]

Denny, give it a rest bro. This thread is more about political ideologies and less about the name of the party. And it's not really about Moore.

[Joe Thorn]

I was just thinking (again) there goes the point...

[Brad R]

Back to the topic at hand... Is there a transcript of the chat somewhere (or a recording I could listen to)?

Brad R

[Denny Burk]

Steve,

It looks like you haven't been paying close attention to the thread. You might want to reread it.

Thanks,
Denny

[Van Edwards]

Did anyone listen to the broadcast? It went much as I expected. However, did you hear Miller's response to the question "How are people saved?" You can hear it at about 1hr 10mins into the interview.

I would be very interested in others thoughts on this part of the discussion.

Apart from the social justice points, which I think are valid, if the gospel is misinterpreted or salvation is miscommunicated, the train is derailed, even though it has the appearance of movement. I'm not saying that Don did one or the other. But this would be an instance of Don's stated views that was asked about earlier.

[Joe Thorn]

Denny,

I think you are straining a gnat. Moore is not the point of the discussion. Van, I am almost done putting up a summary of the chat on my blog. Should be up in a bit.

[Steve McCoy]

Denny, I've interacted on this thread much more than you have. I understand it quite well, thank you.

[Denny Burk]

Steve,

Nuh uh.

Denny

[Steve McCoy]

Denny, I've considered banning you for your exhaustively long posts. If you can't state things concisely then don't say anything.

Enjoy the day.

Me

[Denny Burk]

Steve,

Russell Moore's name appears 24 times in this thread. Eight of the references belong to you. Ten of the references belong to Joe Thorn. The first comment on this thread was posted by Joe Thorn, and it was about Russell Moore.

Thanks,
Denny

[Denny Burk]

P.S. Please don't ban me.

[Denny Burk]

P.S.S. If you ban me, what will I do with the rest of my Spring break?

[Joe Thorn]

That settles it. His name appears 20+ times and therefore he is the... wait, "think" appears over 30 times. Now what do I do? ;)

[Richard A. Bailey]

Well, Denny's name occurs at least 31 times (32 now). Maybe this is really all about him?

[Steve McCoy]

Denny, if you don't end your Russ Moore fetish, you will be banned. You counted the times used? Did you consider the context? I don't think so.

Joe's first reference was a joke, more inside than outside. He can be like that. His remark is in response to a link to Russ from the humorous part of my post. It was never the point. It became a side issue (starting with Matt, who took it another direction) that no one could stop talking about, like you in the comment I'm responding to.

I believe every reference I made to Russ was in response to someone else who made him the issue. I didn't want it to be about him.

Honestly, I just wish you'd drop it. That's what "Enjoy the day" meant. You are counting the usage of names bro. Go read a book or something, for crying out loud.

[Denny Burk]

Steve,

I did the name-counting before I saw "enjoy the day." I do appreciate the sentiment contained therein.

Now, off to the books I go.

Thanks,
Denny

[Steve McCoy]

I go there myself. Thanks.