Eyes on Miller
Since this is in response to remarks made two weeks ago, thought it would be good to post this as a new thread rather than a comment.
Eyes wrote: "In a way, Miller is a salesman. He caters to our weakness and
What evidence do you have to support your assertion that Miller consciously seeks not to "push the envelope" too much -- in your words, not to "challenge the dominant ideology" too much?
More Eyes: "God's frightening power, his fearsom rod of correction, and the aggressively reactionary nature of the gospel message is largely ignored."
I would tend to agree that this biblical theme is not loudly spoken of in Miller's book. By the way, what do you mean by the "aggressively reactionary nature of the gospel?" Please elaborate.
Eyes again: "Miller's tendency to make startling deferences to American postmodernism deserves our attention. Chapters 5,6,7 are so much about "me", so much less about "us" and even less still about "Him" that I feel unsettled."
Are you equating postmodernism with self-centeredness? I think a handful of us in this community consider ourselves postmoderns (myself included), but I should hope not to be thought of as self-centered for that reason -- I'm perfectly self-centered all by myself, thank you very much; I hardly need any help from any particular world view.
On the whole, I disagree that "Blue Like Jazz" is not about Him, although I admit I don't have the particular content of chs. 5-7 in view when I say this. I find the material challenging to me on a personal level. In particular, I resonate with the kind of thinking that led Miller to describe his perception of the world as a story about him in which other people play minor roles. I want to become a more considerate, thoughtful, loving person, and I think the Lord is using this book to achieve this in me.
4 comments:
I'll respond to these one at a time I suppose.
First, what evidence do I have that "Miller consciously seeks not to push the envelope"? None and it’s worth pointing out that I never made this claim in the first place. I chose to use the term "dominant ideology" because that's what I meant. Ideology is something which affects a society at the level of our unconscious assumptions. Many of the values and institutions we take for granted help to comprise an ideology. In this time and place, I claim that "late capitalism" is the dominant ideology and that "postmodernism" is simply a general term to describe a lot of cultural production that supports this ideology. Big words aside, I think Miller is a genuine product of his time. His words may push the envelope as far as a more orthodox Christianity is concerned but to your average American college student his stuff is benign. If subjectivity and individualism is valued at the university, the hip art gallery, the mall, why shouldn't it be valued in the church?
This moves us to your second question: "How is the gospel aggressively reactionary"? I know, you probably want me to use the term "Revolutionary" since Revolution is so much cooler (more on that issue later). But really I mean what I said. I think that orthodox Christianity is radically at odds with the ideology of late capitalism. In fact I think the gospel demands that we reject this ideology in order to embrace a truth that is much deeper and much older, the truth of a triune God for example, who in the eternal exchange of his three persons demonstrates a perfected model of human communal existence. What I'm saying is that the gospel is reactionary in this individualist postmodern context.
That brings us nicely to your third question: "Do I equate post-modernism with self-centeredness". I really like this question. If you had asked: "Do you equate post-modernism with the rise of subjectivism and individualism?" I would say, without hesitation, yes (See Kierkegaard, Sartre, Barth, Nietzsche and all those guys). However you used a term which has implications for personal morality and in so doing hit the nail on the head. I don't equate postmodernism with the individual sin of selfishness but I do see them as related. I don't think you're self-centered because you like postmodernism. I think that you and I are self-centered and so when someone thinks of a way to reconcile postmodernism with Christian spirituality we love it because it falsely exonerates us of a guilt we are right to feel. And there you have it: millions of copies sold. A fad burgeons and scores of Christians flock to the Christian bookstores, the megachurches, and the other shrines of sanctified consumerism so they can be part of what will surely be the hottest new thing since Christian rock: emergent Xianity.
Congratulations, by the way. I was super excited to hear the news.
Wow...I deeply appreciate your response, Isaac. Your words are extremely thought-provoking. I have 37 questions for you, but I will have to sit at your feet at a later time.
Signed,
"The J Man"
It's time we put some closure on this post and comments... So, here are some thoughts I've been sitting on for a while:
Some readers of this blog were put off by the sudden vigor (vitriol? venom?) of this exchange. This blog and class are aiming for a very different tone: we want to create and maintain a safe space in which to "find our voice" in (re)expressing and (re)discovering the truths of the Gospel ... in a genuine conversation, without worrying that someone might try to chew us to pieces or ridicule us. To this end, let's all try to choose our written and spoken words carefully; and to consider their audience, their potential impact, and the bigger picture. (See Philippians 2.)
(So do we we all have to be shallow or cloyingly agreeable? No; with a humble and loving posture, even frank disagreement can be expressed clearly, in a way that affirms others and builds them up.)
That said, I am glad Don Miller's delightful little book stirred up a bit of controversy. It should! The book as a whole (starting from the first few chapters but coming to fruition in the last few) presents ideas that are both powerful, and challenging for most Christians. They do involve a kind of postmodernity -- defined as a critique of modernity and late capitalism (almost the opposite of Eyes' definition) -- and indeed, they underly some emphases of so-called "emerging" churches. However, I would argue that this is by no means a caving in to "the age" or a threat to orthodoxy, but a very healthy thing for the Church -- reimagining [M. Scandrette] what it means to live in the way of Jesus today.
But -- enough said! I know not all will agree with the above; but we need to move on. A new class series has begun.
Post a Comment