I’ve found myself experiencing conflict this year with people who hold similar theological convictions, and I’ve been trying to understand why. Cheer Up!: The Life and Ministry of Jack Miller helped me understand, at least a little.
Jack Miller was a pastor and seminary professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and has influenced people like Tim Keller and Jerry Bridges. He was known for a winsome and gospel-centered approach to ministry.
His friend R.J. Rushdoony held similar positions on many issues. Rushdoony moderated Miller’s first installation as a church planter and once hired Miller to join his staff. But Rushdoony was known for holding more controversial views and for being harsh and aggressive, calling the president of Westminster (and friend of Miller’s) a liberal. He argued for taking a prophetic approach and complained that Christians are known for their timidity rather than their faith. He was fired and blacklisted, although his influence continues among some.
Reading about Miller and Rushdoony helped me understand some of what’s happening today.
Descendents of Miller and Rushdoony
When I first discovered Jack Miller, I felt like I’d found a role model. I devoured his book The Heart of a Servant Leader. I’ve spoken to people who knew Miller personally. I continue to be shaped by what I know of Miller and his approach. I’m drawn to his faith and his winsomeness.
I have some friends who love Rushdoony. I believe we have lots to learn from Rushdoony, but I don’t feel drawn to him as I am to Miller. Not so with my friends. They hold many of Rushdoony’s views on controversial topics, and they tend to take a harsher, more prophetic tone.
I’m sure that some would claim to be children of both Miller and Rushdoony, but it seems that they represent two camps within the Reformed movement. Miller and Rushdoony both cooperated and clashed.
The figurative descendants of Miller, and those of Rushdoony, continue to clash today.
Temperament, Conviction, Humility
I’m convinced that at least part of the difference between Miller and Rushdoony was temperamental. Miller knew how to be direct and take a stand, but he tended to do so with winsomeness. Rushdoony tended to be harsher and more prophetic.
I’m convinced today that, at least some of the time, divisions that look theological are motivated, at least in part, by temperament. We can’t solve this easily, but it helps to acknowledge and recognize temperament as a factor, and to learn how to relate to those who are different from us.
But Miller and Rushdoony also held different convictions. Rushdoony held views on the ongoing relevance of Hebrew law and the limits of Romans 13. These views continue to influence some on how we should respond to government today. We’re not as far from Miller and Rushdoony as we think.
All of this should lead us to humility: to the realization that we are part of a conversation that began generations ago, influenced by our own temperaments and theological convictions, and that will likely continue for generations to come. We can’t control how this conversation ends, but we can try to learn from what’s happened in the past, and we can pay attention to the forces that push us to clash.
The descendants of Miller and Rushdoony sometimes clash — but maybe we can learn to clash a little better than we have before.
