Here are some thoughts on Miller Chapt. IV for our discussion this Thursday, brought to us by Larry W.
Miller likes to carry beautiful truths in “earthen vessels.” He uses earthy expressions like guts, back in the day, makes references to Dungeons and Dragons, suggests that John the Evangelist was married and had daughters, he calls the Song of Solomon a musical, and he makes certain that we know he likes to chew tobacco (not just any brand but Long-cut Wintergreen Skoal). Well, that’s about as earthy as the daily newspaper, except newspapers don’t let journalists write slang unless it is a quote.
So what is the truth Miller is putting in these clay pots. He calls his chapter “Free Verse” and he wants us to know that the Bible is not a bunch of lists, rather it is mostly poetry.
p. 55 “I had grown up thinking of my faith in a rather systematic fashion....which is frustrating because I never, ever thought you could diagram truth....I felt that truth was something living, complex, very large and dynamic and animated. Simple words, lists, or formulas could never describe truth or explain the complex nature of our reality.”
This seems to be Millers theme throughout the book, and in this chapter he wants us to think of poetry, especially, free verse, as the best way to deal with faith.
He praises St. Paul for being smart, and he suggests that Paul (p.50) “doesn’t seem like the type to judge people...” He admires John the Evangelist because he (p. 51) “was always taking the camera to the outcasts, into the margins, showing how Jesus didn’t demonstrate any favoritism.” He rhapsodizes about Moses (because he took a class in Moses) and suggests that Moses wrote the book of Job and the first five books of the Bible. He loves the poetic passages found in the books of Moses. He overlooks that fact that Moses wrote the first list of 10 and the very "listy" book of Levitiicus.
It is curious that the only poem he quotes in this “Free Verse” chapter is in iambic rhythm with ABAB rhyme scheme; a highly formulaic structure. Perhaps I am not catching the subtlety of his purpose. Is he against “formulas” or is he against meaningless and thoughtless formulas? The truly great poets can write in highly structured forms and say deeply meaningful truths. Even the Psalms are highly structured (parallelism, rhythmic patterns, and acrostics.)
Emerson, the 19th century transcendentalist philosopher says, “the man is only half himself, the other half is his poet.” Sometimes poets say what we feel but can not articulate. (this is my interjection, not Millers)
Miller, (p. 59) “Perhaps if we stop reducing the text to formulas for personal growth, we can read it as stories of imperfect humans having relations with a perfect God and come to understand the obvious message He is communicating to mankind.“
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Do you know why I never cared for literature classes much? Probably because they made me feel really stupid when I couldn’t immediately point out the idea the author was trying to convey. We would read a story, and the teacher would ask, “What was the author trying to say in this story?” If writers want to communicate some important idea about life, why were they telling me everything I ever wanted to know about hunting green turtles in Grand Cayman? Somehow I missed “the unity of things beneath an ever-changing multiplicity of forms” as the secondary level.
Then one day, maybe with some help, you see it. I makes sense, and you can’t figure out why it wasn’t more obvious before. You never really look at literature the same way after that moment. It seems almost magical, so you look for clues, learn about the techniques, try to understand writing styles, and even learn about the context of the authors life and what they were going through when they were writing. All because you don’t want to miss the true passion or motivation of the author.
And then there’s poetry. I think a C was the best I could muster in poetry.
How do you describe the indescribable? Beauty? Emotion? Desire? God?
Different techniques, meter, verse form, syllables. Like his analogy about wine, I think it takes some time to develop an appreciation. When it happens though, you’re able to see things in a whole new way.
I think Donald Miller is describing this kind of awakening. All of a sudden, the Bible made sense to. Instead of an instructor explaining to you why you should see something in the text, he sees what the authors were actually writing about, at the “secondary level”.
I don’t think Miller is saying he is against formulas. I think he is cautioning against focusing so much on the individual points and lists that we miss the underlying message. If I study poetry until I master every form, every technique, does it mean I understand or feel the idea or emotion the author is trying to convey? If you walk through Berean or Majesty Books, you’ll see many “How to” titles. There must be an appetite for them, or they wouldn’t get published. Maybe in Millers mind, there’s a little too much appetite.
Great conversation this morning. Here's a few follow up thoughts as I have reflected more this a.m. I know that God wants us to read and study His Word, He left it for us so that we CAN know Him and His character. This is illustrated by those characters of the Bible who are able to identify when scripture has been fulfilled, are able to recite scripture that helps others around them understand better. So I have no doubt we need to be in the Word.
We all have been discussing the formulas/rules/guidelines - whatever we want to call them. Again, I think that having some direction is needed, important for us as believers, otherwise we might find ourselves creating our own religion/God/gods. The part that I keep coming back to is this THE main point that Jesus Christ is concerned with me or is it something else that is of much greater importance? 2 examples of where my thought process is/has been going...the parable or the workers that were hired throughout the day, the last getting the same pay as the ones hired early. The last ones would/could not have had a chance to impose the formulas on themselves if they were 'at the last hour'. Jesus placed greater emphasis on the relation versus the deeds that this person might have done. the second illustration is the thief on the cross that was saved. Again, I reflect that he did not have time to even chage a bit about who he was, except that he repented, believed in Jesus Christ and began that relationship with Him. No formulas, just a heart that was transformed, and we will see him in heaven.
I think I am encouraging me and us to understand that along with Donald Miller we can see the relationship with Jesus Christ as the main pillar or foundation, then we can build from there (some will build quickly and a lot, others will take a long time and not get very far). Formulas or rules or guidelines or even self-help books can be of use, but they are truly secondary to the 'love the Lord your God with all your mind, soul, strength...and love your neighbor as yourself'.
Hopefully my thoughts make sense to someone other than me. May we have God's grace as we continue our journey in and through the Kingdom on earth.
Blessings
Randy
Post a Comment