Donald Miller and Church Leadership: Who Leads Anyway?

I like Donald Miller. I really do.

His spiritual memoir Blue Like Jazz, deserves its astounding popularity. It’s funny. It’s sad. It’s a powerfully told true story of what a life of faithfully knowing, loving, and serving Jesus can look like. I’d recommend it to anyone.

For most of the 2000’s I was a youth pastor. For reasons that I still don’t understand, most of the kids that came were those on the fringes of society. You could probably label them “at-risk”. Most were guys. Most were without fathers. For those who cared, I pointed them to Miller’s own memoir about growing up without a Dad, To Own a Dragon. I found it to be a painfully helpful and hopeful guide in growing up without a Dad.

I’m not a Donald Miller-hater. Like I said, I really like the guy. That’s why I’m so disappointed by a recent blog of his that has been making its rounds in the blogosphere, Facebook newsfeeds, and clearing-houses like Relevant magazine. (As of this morning, it’s been shared 3667 times on Facebook.) Reaction seems to be mostly positive, but I’m not buying it.

Essentially Miller is saying this: sometime around the invention of the printing press (huh?) scholars hijacked the church and made it into their image. Since then the church has been run by a school and has splintered into thousands of factions who spend their time fighting over points of doctrine rather than being and doing the work of the Church (which is what exactly?). Miller’s anecdote: let the scholars go into their corner and fight amongst themselves while the average, ordinary folks take the lead.

The good: In a way, he’s on to something. The Church of God is comprised of all people full of different gifts and talents that bring something to the table. A Church that diminishes the service of one type of person to the glorification of another is a Church in defect. He wants to you (and me I suppose) to realize that you have what it takes to be a leader in the Church. I’m not fighting with him on that point.

That being said, Miller is severely mis-guided and is full of so many half-truths and misunderstandings it is difficult to know where to begin. But I have to begin somewhere.

The Church is Led by Scholars?

Miller writes: “The church in America is led by scholars. Essentially, the church is a robust school system created around a framework of lectures and discussions and study. We assume this is the way its supposed to be because this is all we have ever known. I think the scholars have done a good job, but they’ve also recreated the church in their own image. Churches are essentially schools. They look like schools with lecture halls, classrooms, cafeterias and each new church program is basically a teaching program.”

First, I think he seems to be referring to what happens on Sunday mornings. And I think he’s talking about sermons. I’m not sure though. He’s not really clear what he means. Because, if I’m right in my interpretation, that’s a severely deficient understanding of the Church. It’s a severely deficient understanding of the nature and task of preaching. It’s a severely deficient understanding of the purpose of Christian education.

Second, I wasn’t aware Miller was such an expert in church governance. In my own denomination, the church is “led” by the trifecta of a Minister of Word and Sacrament (the preacher and pastor), Elders, and Deacons. In a narrow way the pastor is responsible for the teaching (and equipping) ministry of the church. The Deacons are responsible for the works of service that mark the church. But it’s the Elders that lead the church. These are the ordinary folk that Miller seems to be talking about. These are teachers, doctors, interior decorators, stay-at-home moms and dads, lawyers, and whatever job fills your day. Elders themselves are ruled by Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and informed by our Book of Confessions. Beyond that they exercise prayer, conscience, knowledge and wisdom in their ruling and leading. They certainly don’t set up bully pulpits or lecture podiums.

We Presbyterians aren’t exceptional here. By and large congregations in the United States are democratically led. There are no evil scholars hi-jacking the purpose and work of the church. There is remarkable freedom in the forms that the life, work, and proclamation of the Church might take place.

Third, if you believe people like Mark Noll (but he’s a scholar, so perhaps he shouldn’t be trusted), the church in the United States hasn’t had too much education and intellectual fervor, but too little. But what does Noll know, he’s only done, you know, research? If Noll is correct, the academic community should be criticized not for having too much power and influence but for not doing a good enough job at the task they do have. And the Church as a whole shouldn’t be criticized for giving the teachers too much credit, but too little.

What’s an Educator Worth Anyway?

Miller writes: “Educators make speeches and do little else, except study for their next lecture. I wonder what the first disciples would think if they could see our system of schools, our million lectures, our billion sub lectures, our curriculums and our lesson plans. I think they’d be impressed, to be honest, but I also think they’d recognize a downside.”

To all my teachers (seminary and otherwise) and all other teachers out there: I’m sorry there are people out there who write drivel like this.

Thank you for challenging me to a deeper place of faith, equipping me for works of service. Thank you for challenging me to know God more deeply. Thank you for bringing me to a place of greater depth. In short, thank you for your service to the Kingdom of God. I know how much you care. I know the prayer you bring to the table. I know the time you’ve spent meeting with students (who aren’t necessarily seeking to lead the church but to grow in their life and service as part of the church) listening to them and supporting them in their ministry.

The Task of Theology

Miller seems to believe that the task of theology (i.e. educators and scholars) is to sow discord and division: “Church divisions are almost exclusively academic divisions. The reason I don’t understand my Lutheran neighbor is because a couple academics got into a fight hundreds of years ago. And the rest of the church followed them because, well, they were our leaders. So now we are divided under divisions caused by arguments a laboring leadership might never have noticed of cared about.”

Umm … ask any female pastor if questions about women in ministry are an academic division that laboring leadership that no one really cares about. I’m a member of the PC(USA) denomination. Our division with the PCA was largely on questions of ordaining women. I’m sorry Donald, but that matters.

Or let’s go back a bit further shall we. Way before the invention of the printing press (which is when academics hijacked the church, as we all know) there was a controversy that plagued the church. Sides were drawn, people were excommunicated. Debates were made about one letter (I kid you not). So some academics got together to figure it out and Creeds were written. Purely intellectual hogwash that the "laboring leadership" cares little about right? Maybe not. The issue: the divinity of Jesus Christ. In the 4^th century there were serious questions about how we could consider Jesus “God”. There were huge fights. At the end of the matter, one group of academics decided that whatever you say makes God God, you have to say it about Jesus. Leaders (academics) such as Athanasius wisely recognized that God alone saves and what we think about Jesus matters for questions of life and salvation. I'd like to believe these questions matter and are of importance to "laboring leadership" who are called to proclaim the whole counsel of God to all people. I'd like to believe that includes questions such as "who is Jesus Christ really?"

*Oh, and I’m not even going to get into the myriad of factors that have caused the major historic breaches in the major branches of Christianity. To say they are “almost exclusively academic division” is grossly reductionist and doesn’t pay nearly enough attention to the geographical, sociological, and political issues that were also at stake.*

The Church of God must always be hearing the Word of God afresh. It is the task of the theologians and scholars to move the Church into a place of hearing that Word of God. It is the task of the theologians and scholars to look farther, gaze deeper, and reflect more fully than the average Joe.

Just as you probably don’t want me opening you up and performing heart surgery on you, it’s possible that there are those in the Church who are better equipped to handle the deep questions of faith. Rather than treating them with scorn, perhaps we should celebrate their task and listen!

They are to do this for the benefit of the Church and the glory of God. And perhaps, perhaps! these divisions, these squabbles (which he never really identifies by the way) serve a function. Perhaps by listening to Catholic voices, Reformed voices, Eastern Orthodox voices, Baptist voices, Pentecostal voices I’m able understand that my whole self is in need of redemption—including my feeble mind. By contrasting voices we deeply recognize our deep inadequacies in thinking and speaking rightly about God. Listening (and respectfully arguing) with dissenting voices has the net affect of pushing the Church into a deeper place of recognizing our need of total forgiveness and restoration as well pushing us into a place of hearing what the Word of God is saying so that we might be a teaching and proclaiming Church to the Word where we bear witness to the God that has rescued us in Jesus Christ.