Not having done a line by lie for a while, let me explain. The point of a line by lie article is to deconstruct the deconstructors. But instead of deconstructing their literature like they do others, we will actually use logic and Scripture, rather than by simply claiming we can't know what the author meant.
So here is a line by lie post done on an article taken from Donald Miller’s own
website.DM (Donald Miller): I wrapped this book up in a bar on Hawthorne and that night I felt like I was losing it a bit. Essentially, I had begun to wonder if had misunderstood the gospel of Jesus, thinking of it in propositional terms rather than relational dynamics.
ANSWER: Yes, Paul had that problem, too. He thought of the gospel in propositional terms. In fact, you can read the four propositions he called the gospel in I Corinthians 15:1-8. 1. He died for our sins according to the Scriptures (prophetic propositions). 2. He was buried. 3. He was raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures. 4. He was seen by all sorts of folks afterward, including a crowd of 500 at one time. Of course, Paul was not as smart as you. He never figured out just how stupid he was to think propositions were important.
DM: The latter (relational dynamics) seemed too poetic to be true,...
ANSWER: Tell us, Don, since the gospel is to be thought of in terms of relational dynamics, can you tell us what those dynamics are? And remember not to tell us what they are, because that would be propositional. Now, go ahead and tell us. But remember not to tell us. Okay?
DM: ...but the former (a propositional understanding of the gospel) had been killing my soul for years...
ANSWER: You shouldn’t have said that because it was propositional, but I'll answer you anyway. Paul said that we are saved by those four propositions. Perhaps if you obeyed those propositions, instead of disobeying them, you’d feel better. And in Romans 10:9 he told us that we are to confess those propositions or we will not be saved. So, yes, your soul feels like it is dying when faced with those doctrines because it is opposed to God and His truth always convicts.
DM: ...and (the propositional understanding of the gospel) was simply illogical.
ANSWER: Wow! Like I said, it's amazing just how stupid Paul was. And Jesus, too. After all, He asked His disciple to confess Him and His doctrines. You know, those things He proposed as true?
DM: If we hold that Jesus wanted us to "believe" certain ideas or "do" certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy.
ANSWER: You mean like believing that Christ was the Son of God and repenting? So, since a Christian is never to be defined by what he believes or does, is it the color or his hair? His weight, height, IQ, good teeth, bad teeth, what? Tell us. Oh, I get it; he has to be relationally dynamic, huh?
DM: In that bar on Hawthorne, I finished the last paragraph and felt a kind of sickness at the thought of whether or not I was telling the truth.
ANSWER: Aw. Don’t worry. Propositions are all tosh, remember? So "truth" is nonsense.
DM: But after further consideration,...
ANSWER: You
should have had another beer.
DM: ...and after rewriting the book, I realized the formulaic version of Christianity was irrational, and for that matter, unbiblical.
ANSWER: There you go with another proposition. But I'll answer you anyway. (Mind if I use some propositions?) The Bible is chock full of propositions. Explain to us, Don, how the Bible is unbiblical.
DM: True Christian spirituality mirrors relational dynammics more than the workings of a free-market economy.
ANSWER: Neither of these have anything to do with the message of the gospel. The gospel is about God’s redemptive plan. It is proposed to us in Scripture as true, relationships and all. Which brings up quite a question for you, Don. Why are we to think that Jesus, Isaiah, Moses, Paul, Augustine, Luther, and all our forefathers were idiots to present God’s truth propositionally, but when you present your version of the truth propositionally we are to believe you?
DM: This seemed to open up an entire new world to me, a world where every thought and feeling operates as a kind of living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead.
ANSWER: Human thoughts and feelings are depraved, actually. The Bible says that the heart is desparately sick and more deceiving than anything else, Jer. 17:9. And the Bible says this in II Corinthians 10: “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,...” Paul was busy bringing his thoughts in line with God, not creating a god and a gospel out of his own thoughts. But then he was awfully propositional, huh?
DM: As a year has passed since the release of the book, I've seen more and more how, in my own life and in the lives of the Christians around me, we subscribe to false gospels that are troubling our souls.
ANSWER: “False gospels” like the one in Scripture? You know, that propositional one? Of course, if it makes your soul feel bad it can't be true, huh?
DM: ...To understand what the Bible explains...
ANSWER: Explain? You mean propositionally?
DM: To understand what the Bible explains Jesus’ gospel to be, we must look to each other, to the way a father interacts with a child, a bride to a bridegroom, a doctor to a patient.
ANSWER: Doh! (Forehead smack.) And I thought we had to read the Bible.
DM: When we let go of the idea of Jesus as a product and embrace Him as a being, our path to spiritual maturity begins.
ANSWER: Now there’s a good logical argument. If you don’t agree with Don you think Jesus is a product and you’re immature. Thanks for straightenin’ us out there, Bro.
Conclusion: Mr. Miller argues against a propositional understanding of the gospel by using propositions. He argues for his version of the truth, but fails to explain how we are to understand truth, since truth cannot be carried by language (propositions.) And he makes his argument by the use of language. Worst of all, he denies the very gospel that calls us to believe it by saying any requirement of belief is heresy, a proposition any good Christian believes in his view. But he hopes you will continue to buy his books to see exactly what he will propose next. And I'll bet he hopes you believe it.
Can anyone say “snake oil”?
Phil Perkins.
Labels: Emergent Doctrine, Emergent Follies, Line by Lie, Miller